W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > July to September 1999

Re: Filled Form (Lucent Patent Disclosure From)

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 15:15:14 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990706151514.00a82840@localhost>
To: faynberg@lucent.com (Igor Faynberg)
Cc: patent-issues@w3.org, "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>, "W3C Comm Team" <w3t-comm@w3.org>
Igor,

Thank you for you clarification that to the best of your knowledge Lucent
does not have patents related to this activity. The form of solicitation is
ambiguous, while we ask for people to choose one of two options, logically
speaking both apply to you: Lucent does not have IPR to the best of your
knowledge on this domain, but even so, you've disclosed your IPR policies.
So instead of:

 > 6) Intellectual Property Rights (please choose one)
 >    [ ] We do not have intellectual property rights
 >        relating to the XML-DSig Activity
 >    [X] We have disclosed our IPR following the procedure at
 >        http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/#ipr

It should be:

6) Intellectual Property Rights (please choose one)
    [ ] We do not have intellectual property rights
        relating to the XML-DSig Activity
    [X] We do have intellectual property rights 
        relating to the XML-DSig Activity and we have made the 
        appropriate disclosure as documented in:
        http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/#ipr

I believe the W3C also needs to further qualify what it means by IPR in its
process document, in that we are not necessarily interested in disclosures
of related BUT independent copyrights on documentation or software -- of
which there will be a ton -- only things that will affect the working group,
such as a trademark and patent.
_________________________________________________________
Joseph Reagle Jr.   
Policy Analyst           mailto:reagle@w3.org
XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Tuesday, 6 July 1999 15:15:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:06 GMT