OASIS PKCS 11 TC

 View Only
  • 1.  RE: The PKCS11 TC IPR Mode

    Posted 03-04-2013 21:38
    FYI, I was looking into the work of another TC just now and I ran into this interesting item < https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/imi/obligation.php >. This is relevant to the Disclosure policy (section 8) and Types of Obligations (section 9) here: < https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/ipr#disclosure >. This TC is also under RF on RAND. - Dennis PS: I can fully understand how a firm that has IP might find RF on RAND acceptable and be uncomfortable with a Non-Assertion IPR. I suppose it is better to have contribution under RF on RAND rather than have no contribution under Non-Assertion. I can't dispute that. My considerations are simply about the downstream usability of my own efforts.


  • 2.  Re: [pkcs11] RE: The PKCS11 TC IPR Mode

    Posted 03-04-2013 21:49
    Hi Dennis,  You'll find that every TC has that same list of Obligated Members over on the right hand set of related links.  /chet On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton < dennis.hamilton@acm.org > wrote: FYI, I was looking into the work of another TC just now and I ran into this interesting item < https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/imi/obligation.php >.  This is relevant to the Disclosure policy (section 8) and Types of Obligations (section 9) here: < https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/ipr#disclosure >.  This TC is also under RF on RAND.  - Dennis PS: I can fully understand how a firm that has IP might find RF on RAND acceptable and be uncomfortable with a Non-Assertion IPR.  I suppose it is better to have contribution under RF on RAND rather than have no contribution under Non-Assertion.  I can't dispute that.  My considerations are simply about the downstream usability of my own efforts.