OpenID 2.0 finalization progress

[Gabe Wachob]

I think that's exactly right, though it's really easy to have blind spots
when it comes to figuring out the permutations of how one can game group
behavior... so I won't guarantee anything else could happen (I've learned
that much from law school ;)

As I said, I *believe* the all the actors involved wish to work in the
community's best interest - though my belief in the goodness of humanity
doesn't really carry any legal meaning!!!

	-Gabe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: joshhoyt at gmail.com [mailto:joshhoyt at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Josh
> Hoyt
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 3:29 PM
> To: Gabe Wachob
> Cc: Kevin Turner; specs
> Subject: Re: OpenID 2.0 finalization progress
> 
> On 10/22/07, Gabe Wachob <gabe.wachob at amsoft.net> wrote:
> > 3) the community calls the spec final and a contributor raises a
> potential
> > patent infringement issue, and since the community has already
> implemented
> > and deployed 2.0, the patent owner has more leverage because the costs
> of
> > "engineering around" the claims in the patent have gone way up because
> of
> > already-deployed software.
> 
> In order for this to be a concern, there needs to be a party who
> currently:
>  1. has a patent that the spec infringes upon
>  -- and --
>  2. intends to claim infringement it if the spec is released without
> an IPR agreement in place
>  -- and --
>  3. would be party to the IPR agreement
> 
> Did I get this right?
> 
> Josh