W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-coremob@w3.org > March 2013

IG vs. CG and IP risk [Was: Re: Next Steps for W3C Coremob]

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:31:10 -0400
Message-ID: <5140718E.6070005@nokia.com>
To: ext Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com>
CC: Josh Soref <jsoref@blackberry.com>, Core Mobile <public-coremob@w3.org>
On 3/13/13 6:15 AM, ext Tobie Langel wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Josh Soref wrote:
>> For something which is more or less an advocacy group, the CG style IPR commitment is a lot easier to sell to our powers that be than the IG/WG commitments.
> There are no IP commitments in IGs[a]. On an IPR perspective, IGs are easier to sell than CGs.

Well the former is true and the later can be argued (at least by BB) but 
IGs are no panacea for Members concerned about managing IP risk.

<p role=IANAL>

Having no IP commitment at all from IG contributors does introduce some 
risk. For example, an IG contribution could end up in a WG spec and if 
the Contributor doesn't participate in that WG, there is no (RF) IP 
commitment for such a contribution (from the the Contributor).

IOW, provenance of contributions turns out to be _really_ important if a 
goal is RF standards and AFAIK, CGs have a clear mechanism for tracking 
contributions, whereas IGs do not.

Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2013 12:31:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:05:48 UTC