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

Eve L. Maler Eve.Maler at Sun.COM
Fri Jul 20 14:03:22 UTC 2007

Hi folks-- No permission needed, really, to copy the Sun 
non-assertion covenant; we encourage people to base theirs on ours. 
  If you have questions, don't hesitate to get in touch with me.

David is right that "necessary claims" (or "essential claims") 
language is more restrictive and provides less assurance to 
developers.  Simon Phipps has blogged in detail on this and on other 
characteristics of such declarations:



Recordon, David wrote:
> 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
> ambiguity.
> 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.
> --David
> -----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.

Eve Maler                                         +1 425 947 4522
Technology Director                           eve.maler @ sun.com
CTO Business Alliances group                Sun Microsystems, Inc.

More information about the board mailing list