OpenID 2.0 finalization progress

[Gabe Wachob]

Dick is right here regarding the certainty that an IPR policy provides with
respect to patent. 

And IPR policy can never ensure that everyone in the world will refrain from
making patent claims. With regards to patent, an IPR policy and procedure
can only really affect those who choose to be subject to it, either
passively by participating in a standards process, or actively by issuing a
license or non-assert. 

So Dick is right that it's not 100% protection - but it does at least
demonstrate that those directly involved are not attempting to induce
implementations which are covered by patent claims for which patent holders
intend to demand royalties or impose other unacceptable restrictions on use.

      -Gabe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: specs-bounces at openid.net [mailto:specs-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf
> Of Dick Hardt
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 2:44 AM
> To: david at sixapart.com
> Cc: specs at openid.net
> Subject: Re: OpenID 2.0 finalization progress
> 
> 
> On 19-Oct-07, at 10:20 PM, David Recordon wrote:
> 
> > Completely agreed with Johannes.  We are very close with the IPR
> > policy/process being in place and assuming all the contributors agree
> > to it, 2.0 can be declared final within 30 days of October 30th as
> > that is the end of the public review period for the policy.  2.0 is
> > really important and has a wide range of contributors, we've all put
> > a lot of effort into this, lets make sure we do this right.
> 
> Doing it right would have been to have had a process in place over a
> year ago. A little late to be doing it right now. Now we are having
> to clean up the mess!
> 
> >
> > To Kevin's question, the IPR policy does not require a patent search,
> > which as he points out could be a lengthy process.  Rather it
> > requires that all contributors to the specification make a non-
> > assertion statement to ensure that the spec truly is free and not
> > encumbered by any patents.
> 
> Just because the contributors all make non-assertion statements does
> not make the spec unencumbered. Non-contributors could have patents
> that are asserted.
> 
> While having an IPR policy in place will, provide more certainty
> around the IPR, it will NOT ensure the spec is free.
> 
> 
> > I spoke with Brad Fitzpatrick (cc'd)
> > tonight about this and he too agrees that 2.0 should not be declared
> > final until it has gone through the IPR review cycle to fully ensure
> > that it is clear from any IPR encumbrances in regards to the
> > contributors.
> 
> You forgot to not cc Brad, and I'd prefer to hear from Brad himself
> then have you channel him.
> 
> -- Dick
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs