OASIS Member Discuss

 View Only

RE: [chairs] Is "Defensive RF" the answer to the OASIS IPR impasse?

  • 1.  RE: [chairs] Is "Defensive RF" the answer to the OASIS IPR impasse?

    Posted 05-08-2006 18:49
     MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    oasis-member-discuss message

    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


    Subject: RE: [chairs] Is "Defensive RF" the answer to the OASIS IPR impasse?


    Gabe,
     
    I agree that OASIS can do more here. 
     
    Right now we're caught in no-mans-land as TC chairs - where we are being asked to sign-on to IPR policies that appear to not be in-line with the needs of our work and members vision, while at the same time being hand-cuffed in not being able to mitigate that by clarifications at the TC level to participants.
     
    If we had tools like sample IPR contribution agreement templates (such as defensive RF, RF) that we can present to participants up front - then as you rightly note - the likelihood is that their respective legal departments will apply something close to that.  Instead when you throw it open - you end up with legal imposing something that is at odds with the spirit and mission because their frame of reference is narrowed just to that company view.
     
    So I'm not sure that the new IPR is less "messy" than the old!?  It's more perscribing - but that appears to be in a negative way that does not solve the issues we are seeing here.  If a TC wants to simplify this all by chartering its work as specifically RF-based as a term of participatation and acceptance of contributions - right now we cannot.
    Thanks, DW