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

Comments inline:

-----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.

[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. 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, 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, 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

Received on Friday, 29 March 2013 21:41:45 UTC