[OpenID board] FW: [Marketing] IPR Info on Specs Page

Recordon, David drecordon at verisign.com
Fri Jul 20 07:33:24 UTC 2007

My understanding, and I certainly don't play a lawyer on tv, is that in
order of openness it is Sun first, then VeriSign, and then Microsoft.
While Microsoft might disagree, the covenants issued by Sun and VeriSign
are much simpler and have fewer places where there could be considered

The difference between Sun's statement and VeriSign's is that VeriSign
chose the "necessary claims" wording when referring to our patents and
whereas Sun removed the ability to argue if a claim is necessary by
covering all of their patents.  This is something that will be balanced
by IPR counsel and what they're comfortable with.

All three of the covenants include termination wording in case of a
patent lawsuit.  Sun's and VeriSign's apply to threats or suits against
any OpenID 1.1 implementation whereas Microsoft's only terminates if the
suit is against Microsoft versus any implementer.  Once again, this will
have to do with your companies IPR policies, though IMHO it is better to
work to protect every implementer especially given the less than perfect
IPR situation thus far.

I know very little about the IBM statement itself, though cc'ing Gabe
and Eve who hopefully can provide some information.

Please also feel free to copy the VeriSign wording, we copied it with
permission from Sun, if it would be useful.


-----Original Message-----
From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On
Behalf Of Johannes Ernst
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 12:33 PM
To: board at openid.net
Subject: Re: [OpenID board] FW: [Marketing] IPR Info on Specs Page

Is there a wording that we can use?

Dick, are you using the same that VeriSign is using, or the Sun one, or
Microsoft, IBM ... there seem to be many to choose from these days ;-)

On Jul 19, 2007, at 19:54, Recordon, David wrote:

> Had meant to do this for a while, but seemed especially important 
> given the article by Dave Kearns and then a blog post by Phil Hunt of 
> Oracle (http://blogs.oracle.com/identityprivacy/2007/07/19#a67).
> I know the board passed a motion a few months ago for all board 
> members to issue non-assertion statements.  I'm thinking now would be 
> a good time to start getting that rolling since VeriSign has issued 
> one and Sxip has said they will to Dave Kearns.
> I'd be happy to start contacting companies around this as well.
> --David
> -----Original Message-----
> From: marketing-bounces at openid.net [mailto:marketing- 
> bounces at openid.net] On Behalf Of Recordon, David
> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 11:51 AM
> To: marketing at openid.net
> Subject: [Marketing] IPR Info on Specs Page
> Just added a section on IPR status and efforts around OpenID specs to 
> http://openid.net/specs.bml.  This is becoming quite relevant given 
> some of the discussions and articles this week.
> Now to build out this list of companies! :)
> --David
> _______________________________________________
> marketing mailing list
> marketing at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/marketing
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board

Johannes Ernst
NetMesh Inc.

More information about the board mailing list