Re: Call for Exclusions: Verifiable Credentials Data Model 1.0

Thankyou Ian this is a very helpful answer.
Kind regards
David

On 08/08/2019 22:16, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> 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 Friday, 9 August 2019 08:12:15 UTC