Re: Call for Exclusions: Verifiable Credentials Data Model 1.0

HI David,

Although I am not a lawyer, I will try to act like one here.

> On Jul 26, 2019, at 4:26 AM, David Chadwick <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> What is the situation regarding Patents that already exist and that were
> not written by members of the working group, but that may cover part of
> the WG document? In other words, if anyone was to use the W3C
> recommendation they might unwhittingly be encroaching on a pre-existing
> patent of a third party that no-one in the WG knew about.

W3C would likely reach out to that company and seek a Royalty-Free license
from that company.

Note that a royalty-free license under the W3C patent policy [1] "may be conditioned on a 
grant of a reciprocal RF license (as defined in this policy) to all Essential Claims owned 
or controlled by the licensee.”

Suppose CompanyA participated in the Working Group but CompanyB did not (and 
CompanyB has essential claims). CompanyA can ask CompanyB for an RF license for 
CompanyB’s essential claims. If CompanyB refuses to grant an RF license for those claims, 
the above provision allows CompanyA to refuse to grant an RF license (for CompanyA’s 
essential claims) to CompanyB. Thus, the patent policy can have the effect of increasing the 
pool of claims available under RF terms, even from companies that did not participate 
in the development of the Recommendation.

This provision would not be effective in the case where CompanyB has essential claims
and needs nothing from CompanyA. I am not aware of any patent policy that protects 
against this scenario.

Ian


[1] https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Requirements

--
Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
https://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel: +1 718 260 9447

Received on Thursday, 8 August 2019 21:17:49 UTC