RE: Ideas on simplification of process and operations

Larry Rosen wrote:
> > The current W3C process also reflects a desire by members that their
> > patent commitments may be withdrawn at specific checkpoints (e.g.,
> > Last Call) in the process. In Open Web Foundation, we're developing
> > a Contributor License Agreement that allows a straightforward 45-day
> > opt out for patent claims relating to a patent owner's actual
> > contributions to a specification, and allows contributors to
> > postpone their patent commitments for the rest of the specification
> > until they voluntarily sign an OWF Agreement that contains a non-
> > assert for that entire specification. Our hope is that this will
> > eliminate some of the process delays, such as those in W3C,
> > surrounding the commitment to royalty-free licensing of patents. If
> > patents become less of a concern, perhaps innovation will be faster.

Ian Jacobs then asked several questions: 
> Given your description above, I have a couple of questions:
> 
>   * How do you establish what an "actual contribution" is? The W3C
> Patent Policy Working Group avoided having to answer that question in
> the resulting W3C patent policy.

OWF doesn't set those rules. We're not a standards organization nor do we
host standards projects. For W3C, how about this rule: Everything is a
contribution unless it says "NOT A CONTRIBUTION." 


>   * Given that people make contributions at different times, it sounds
> like in the worst case scenario, someone contributes the "last part of
> a specification" and the people writing the specification would
> probably want to wait the 45 days to see whether the contributor opted
> out for any part. My guess is that the 45-day window is probably
> significantly shorter than the total specification development time,
> but it could potentially add some time to the spec development process.

The 45-day opt-out period under the OWF Contributor Agreement is considered
a reasonable time for companies and their patent attorneys to revoke a
contribution, but nobody is required to wait that long before committing
with a final OWFa for the final spec. There is no 45-day opt-out in the OWFa
once it is signed. 

If all we add to the total specification process is 45 days, I'd think that
was an accomplishment.



>    * I am assuming that some parties will wait until the spec is
> "complete" before they sign the non-assert for the entire
> specification. Is there any expectation that they will be expected to
> do so within a particular time window? It seems to me reasonable for
> the group to be able to say "We're done and we expect everyone to sign
> the non-assert real soon now" for a limited time.

No requirement whatsoever. All we insist upon in the Contributor Agreement
is that the terms of the completely voluntary OWFa for the final
specification are themselves not negotiable. Everyone will go into the
process with a complete understanding of the desired final result, but with
no up-front commitment to contribute anything in particular or to sign the
OWFa for the final spec.



>   * What happens if a contributor chooses not to sign the non-assert?
> Obviously, that would be bad PR. In the W3C incubator group process,
> some organizations have said "We won't join an incubator group where
> there's a chance that someone might pull an IPR stunt after a year's
> investment." Do you have a way to mitigate that concern? Or do you
> think it won't happen?

Anyone pulling an IPR stunt will be shunned forever after. I think it will
happen, if at all, only rarely. After all, our actual patent grant in the
OWF Contributor Agreement and the OWFa will be only for implementing the
specification. Everyone interested in standards ought to share that goal
without considering a royalty-free patent commitment for that limited
purpose to be a bad thing. But we shall see.... And remember, we're only in
DRAFT mode so far on the Contributor Agreement and revised OWFa, so I can
give no assurances of any specific language yet.

/Larry




> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-vision-newstd-request@w3.org [mailto:public-vision-newstd-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ian Jacobs
> Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 3:38 PM
> To: Lawrence Rosen
> Cc: 'Arnaud Le Hors'; public-vision-newstd@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Ideas on simplification of process and operations
<snip>

Received on Saturday, 10 July 2010 19:12:48 UTC