<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Nathan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nathan@webr3.org">nathan@webr3.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><br></div>
Okay, think I'm following..<br>
<br>
1: has every contributor to the OpenID specification(s) agreed to the IPR agreement and made the conditioned patent promise? (2a or 2b in the agreement)<br>
- if the answer isn't 100% yes where does that leave me?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, they have. We're working on making the agreements public again.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
2: why aren't the patents from contributors with Necessary Claims disclosed?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Because it would put contributors at a disadvantage if they revealed that they did or didn't have patents. Essentially by claiming to non-assert the relevant patents, they're saying that if they DO have patents, they won't enforce them against other contributors. Of course, if one contributor discloses that it has 100 patents and another contributors discloses that they have none, from a sheer game theory perspective, obviously the patent owner has a competitive advantage or potential reason to renege on their non-assert promise.</div>
<div><br></div><div>By not disclosing patents but making the promise all the same to enjoined contributors, companies can keep their patent portfolios secret in the event that they need to use them against external patent trolls.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
3: Is the promise a legally binding assertion that no Necessary Claims of these non disclosed patents from contributors can/will be made against me (by contributors), or is it just a promise which equates to me saying "I promise I won't sue you for replying to this email"<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't know. I'm not sure if this has been tested in court, but it is the preferred method of essentially creating what I would think a court would consider as a binding agreement. Again, IANAL, but take a look at this doc from Microsoft that outlines related thinking:</div>
<div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx</a></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Why would you want to include a copy of the spec in your software anyway?<br>
(Just curious).<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Primarily for reference to previous versions or non final standards - may not be an issue at all, would just like to know whether one can include a copy of the spec or not (with legal notices etc in tact of course).</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>Sure. I think we wouldn't want to prohibit that, but we'll need to consult with counsel before making a final decision.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
You are free to implement the protocol without receiving a priori<br>
permission.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Good to know, more concerned what happens after I implement and possibly become reliant on the spec's though ;)</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well, at this point, it'd be you and a LOT of other people, so honestly I don't see this being an issue.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Chris</div><div><br></div></div><br>-- <br>Chris Messina<br>Open Web Advocate, Google<br><br>Personal: <a href="http://factoryjoe.com">http://factoryjoe.com</a><br>Follow me on Buzz: <a href="http://buzz.google.com/chrismessina">http://buzz.google.com/chrismessina</a> <br>
...or Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/chrismessina">http://twitter.com/chrismessina</a> <br><br>This email is: [ ] shareable [X] ask first [ ] private<br>