Re: Next Steps for W3C Coremob - Restatement of Options, Task Force Proposal - Last Call

On 29 Mar 2013, at 4:40 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:

> Comments inline:

And more inline...

Ian

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org] 
> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 1:53 PM
> To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
> Cc: public-coremob@w3.org; Arthur Barstow
> Subject: RE: Next Steps for W3C Coremob - Restatement of Options, Task Force Proposal - Last Call
> 
> 
> Bryan wrote:
>> Please take a look at the Patent Licensing row in Ian's group 
>> comparison: <http://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/compare/> (NB 
>> IGs vs. CGs).
>> 
>> IMHO, the IP commitment barrier for IGs is lower than CGs because there 
>> is NO IP commitment required for IG participants.
>> 
>> <bryan> IG members have the same disclosure requirements as any member, and CG members have the same exclusion rights as WG members for any work taken up to REC-track by a WG - whether they join the WG or not. So there is really little difference - in either case there is no IP commitment required, given that disclosure-only (IG) and the right to exclusion (CG) amount to essentially the same thing.
> 
> Hi Bryan,
> 
> I wanted to comment on your conclusion. Here is why I think that the policies for IGs and CGs do not
> amount to the same thing:
> 
> * In an IG you have no patent licensing commitment, in a CG you do. I believe that IPR departments of
> companies treat those cases differently, even if you say to them "yes, but we can exclude later."
> When I talk to people about their IPR departments, I am told that IPR departments typically want to have
> a discussion when patent commitments are involved. Furthermore, exclusion is also something that
> requires time, attention, and an internal decision. It also make public information about your patent
> portfolio you might not have otherwise shared.
> 
> <bryan> Re "It also make public information about your patent portfolio you might not have otherwise shared": the obligation to disclose essential patents applies to all W3C members regardless of the group they participate in, per [1]. So there is no difference really in terms of public information disclosure risk.

If you join the WG then you wouldn't have to disclose (except upon excluding).

> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-disclosure-requirements 
> 
> * Secondly, when you join a CG you set a social expectation that you will be licensing essential
> claims RF, even though you retain the right to exclude later. People should NOT think that it's
> ok to say "We'll I don't really have an RF commitment since I can exclude later if the work moves
> to a WG." That perspective would be contrary to the community's expectation, and if patent claims
> licensed in a CG are excluded in a WG without very good reason, that will be extremely disruptive 
> to the specification in question. I don't think companies like this sort of publicity.
> 
> <bryan> I see no reason why the "social expectation" in the CG context should be any stronger than that of a WG. While I understand the openness/transparency with which members are assumed to be collaborating on web technology in groups is limited (to say the least) by the business considerations which drive their products and services, I see no reason why CG members should be held to a more altruistic expectation.

I wouldn't say "more altrustic." 

I had this in mind from the W3C patent policy:

 "The goal of this policy is to assure that Recommendations produced under this policy can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis."

So joining a group with the expectation that you are going to exclude everything seems to me to be inconsistent with that goal.

[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/

> That would seem to be a big inhibitor to CG participation, and certainly was not my assumption in joining the CG's that we have. And patent claims excluded by a WG member are no less disruptive,

I didn't really mean to say more or less disruptive. But I think the case can be made that if something has been in development already for a year, for example, that to have exclusions late in the game (in a WG) by the very people who created the thing to begin with (opting in their IPR) would be fairly disruptive.

> and need to be based upon very good reasons, not least because exclusion is a self-defeating exercise: at once keeping technology out of the Web, and also diminishing the IP's value to the underlying native platforms in the process. Members have an easy and better solution; don't join a group, or exit the group when push comes to shove. Because while in all cases disclosure is mandatory,

(except by those who make RF licensing commitments to the spec in question.)

> licensing (and the need for exclusion) can be easily avoided.
> 




> Ian
> 
> --
> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
> Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
> 
> 

--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447

Received on Friday, 29 March 2013 21:59:47 UTC