OASIS Emergency Management TC

While reviewing the EDXL-RM document, I found a surprising (to me, anyway) comment on the EM-TC IPR page (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/emergency/ipr.php):

“Azos AI, LLC. (Azos) holds United States Patent Number 6,359,970 which we believe to be essential to the compliant implementation of the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS) Common Alerting Protocol Committee Specification Version 1.1 (the "Specification"). Azos is willing to offer nonexclusive licenses under this issued patent, upon written request from implementers wishing to pursue compliant implementation of the Specification. These licenses will be provided under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions, in accordance with Azos' then current licensing practices.”

Someone seeing this may conclude that a license for Azos AI technology is required for CAP compliance. Do we have any recourse in removing the comment or at least refuting it on the EM-TC IPR page?

Patti



Patti Iles Aymond, PhD

Senior Scientist, Research & Development 

Innovative Emergency Management, Inc.

Managing Risk in a Complex World



8555 United Plaza Blvd.   Suite 100

Baton Rouge, LA 70809

(225) 952-8228 (phone)

(225) 952-8122 (fax) 





IEM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PLEASE READ OUR NOTICE:
http://www.iem.com/e_mail_confidentiality_notice.html

Thanks Patti,


This is the first time I have heard of this. My question to OASIS
would be: How did this get here? I don't recall this company being
associated with this OASIS TC, let alone contributing anything that
could be claimed to be ipr essential to CAP. I wonder if this is
somehow connected to CAP before it was brought under OASIS? A cursory
glance at their website indicates that their technology is
"wireless" specific and CAP is transport independent.


?
Rex


At 3:36 PM -0500 5/1/07, Aymond, Patti wrote:
While
reviewing the EDXL-RM document, I found a surprising (to me, anyway)
comment on the EM-TC IPR page (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/emergency/ipr.php):


"Azos AI,
LLC. (Azos) holds United States Patent Number 6,359,970 which we
believe to be essential to the compliant implementation of the
Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards
(OASIS) Common Alerting Protocol Committee Specification Version 1.1
(the "Specification"). Azos is willing to offer nonexclusive
licenses under this issued patent, upon written request from
implementers wishing to pursue compliant implementation of the
Specification. These licenses will be provided under reasonable and
non-discriminatory terms and conditions, in accordance with Azos' then
current licensing practices."


Someone
seeing this may conclude that a license for Azos AI technology is
required for CAP compliance. Do we have any recourse in removing the
comment or at least refuting it on the EM-TC IPR page?


Patti


Patti
Iles Aymond, PhD

Senior
Scientist, Research & Development


Innovative Emergency Management,
Inc.


Managing Risk in a Complex World


8555 United Plaza Blvd.   Suite
100

Baton
Rouge, LA 70809

(225)
952-8228 (phone)

(225)
952-8122 (fax)


IEM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PLEASE READ OUR
NOTICE:

http://www..iem.com/e_mail_confidentiality_notice.html





Rex Brooks

President, CEO

Starbourne Communications Design

GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison

Berkeley, CA 94702

Tel: 510-849-2309

On 2 May 2007, at 08:47, Rex Brooks wrote:

This is the first time I have heard of this. My question to OASIS would be: How did this get here? I don't recall this company being associated with this OASIS TC, let alone contributing anything that could be claimed to be ipr essential to CAP. I wonder if this is somehow connected to CAP before it was brought under OASIS? A cursory glance at their website indicates that their technology is "wireless" specific and CAP is transport independent.

The OASIS IPR Policy [1] states that anyone can make claims on OASIS specs.             

This entry seems to be added  on 19 May 2006.   Perhaps the TC should have been formally notified?

The IPR Policy also says:

"Any disclosure of Disclosed Claims shall include (a) in the case of issued patents and published patent applications, the patent or patent application publication number, the associated country and, as reasonably practicable, the relevant portions of the applicable draft or approved OASIS Committee Specification or OASIS Standard; and (b) in the case of unpublished patent applications, the existence of the unpublished application and, as reasonably practicable, the relevant portions of the applicable draft or approved OASIS Committee Specification or OASIS Standard."

It seems this was not followed in this case. It would be good if the claimant made the effort, so we don't have to trawl through patents.


 
Cheers...  Renato Iannella
NICTA

 
[1] <http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php>

Thanks Renato,


Apparently, this third party claim is based on an assumption that
their patent pertains to any transport protocol that supports a
"device for which a communication controller" can
"assume control over incoming communications." This is in
some sense an Essential Claim.


So I guess we get to research what an Essential Claim
means.


W3C:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#def-essential


OASIS:
Essential Claims - those claims in any
patent or patent application in any jurisdiction in the world that
would necessarily be infringed by an implementation of those portions
of a particular OASIS Committee Specification or OASIS Standard
created within the scope of the TC charter in effect at the time such
specification was developed. A claim is necessarily infringed
hereunder only when it is not possible to avoid infringing it because
there is no non-infringing alternative for implementing the Normative
Portions of that particular OASIS Committee Specification or OASIS
Standard. Existence of a non-infringing alternative shall be judged
based on the state of the art at the time the OASIS Specification is
approved


FWIW: The Patent Abstract:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6359970.html


"A communications controller is provided for empowering the
user of a communications device, such as a telephone or other device,
to assume control over incoming communications...."


Cheers,
Rex


At 9:36 AM +1000 5/2/07, Renato Iannella wrote:
On 2 May 2007, at 08:47, Rex Brooks
wrote:


This is the first time I have heard of
this. My question to OASIS would be: How did this get here? I don't
recall this company being associated with this OASIS TC, let alone
contributing anything that could be claimed to be ipr essential to
CAP. I wonder if this is somehow connected to CAP before it was
brought under OASIS? A cursory glance at their website indicates that
their technology is "wireless" specific and CAP is transport
independent.





The OASIS IPR Policy [1] states that
anyone can make claims on OASIS
specs.           



This entry seems to be added 
on 19 May 2006.   Perhaps the TC should have been
formally notified?


The IPR Policy also says:


"Any disclosure of Disclosed Claims
shall include (a) in the case of issued patents and published patent
applications, the patent or patent application publication number, the
associated country and, as reasonably practicable, the relevant
portions of the applicable draft or approved OASIS Committee
Specification or OASIS Standard; and (b) in the case of unpublished
patent applications, the existence of the unpublished application and,
as reasonably practicable, the relevant portions of the applicable
draft or approved OASIS Committee Specification or OASIS
Standard."


It seems this was not followed in this
case. It would be good if the claimant made the effort, so we don't
have to trawl through patents.




Cheers...  Renato
Iannella
NICTA


[1] <http://www..oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php>





Rex Brooks

President, CEO

Starbourne Communications Design

GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison

Berkeley, CA 94702

Tel: 510-849-2309

Hey all,  I appreciate the discussion on this topic and thought it
was useful.  We were made aware of this a year ago and I thought
there was a short discussion about it on the list.  Although, it
could have just been at the OASIS conference in '06.  In any case,
Jamie Clark of OASIS is aware of this and when Julia was secretary, he
instructed us to make the statement on the web page.  I was told
that we didn't need to worry about it, so haven't.  Jamie, is there
any other updates or information that can be shared on this at this
time?  Elysa


At 07:42 PM 5/1/2007, Rex Brooks wrote:

Thanks Renato,


Apparently, this third party claim is based on an assumption that their
patent pertains to any transport protocol that supports a "device
for which a communication controller" can "assume control over
incoming communications." This is in some sense an Essential
Claim.


So I guess we get to research what an Essential Claim means.


W3C:


http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#def-essential


OASIS:

Essential Claims - those claims in any patent or patent application in
any jurisdiction in the world that would necessarily be infringed by an
implementation of those portions of a particular OASIS Committee
Specification or OASIS Standard created within the scope of the TC
charter in effect at the time such specification was developed. A claim
is necessarily infringed hereunder only when it is not possible to avoid
infringing it because there is no non-infringing alternative for
implementing the Normative Portions of that particular OASIS Committee
Specification or OASIS Standard. Existence of a non-infringing
alternative shall be judged based on the state of the art at the time the
OASIS Specification is approved


FWIW: The Patent Abstract:



http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6359970.html



"A communications controller is provided for empowering the user of
a communications device, such as a telephone or other device, to assume
control over incoming communications...."


Cheers,

Rex

At 9:36 AM +1000 5/2/07, Renato Iannella wrote:

On 2 May 2007, at 08:47, Rex
Brooks wrote:


This is the first time I have
heard of this. My question to OASIS would be: How did this get here? I
don't recall this company being associated with this OASIS TC, let alone
contributing anything that could be claimed to be ipr essential to CAP. I
wonder if this is somehow connected to CAP before it was brought under
OASIS? A cursory glance at their website indicates that their technology
is "wireless" specific and CAP is transport
independent.


The OASIS IPR Policy [1] states that anyone can make claims on OASIS
specs.           


This entry seems to be added  on 19 May 2006.   Perhaps
the TC should have been formally notified?


The IPR Policy also says:


"Any disclosure of Disclosed Claims shall include (a) in the case of
issued patents and published patent applications, the patent or patent
application publication number, the associated country and, as reasonably
practicable, the relevant portions of the applicable draft or approved
OASIS Committee Specification or OASIS Standard; and (b) in the case of
unpublished patent applications, the existence of the unpublished
application and, as reasonably practicable, the relevant portions of the
applicable draft or approved OASIS Committee Specification or OASIS
Standard."


It seems this was not followed in this case. It would be good if the
claimant made the effort, so we don't have to trawl through
patents.



Cheers...  Renato Iannella

NICTA


[1]
<
http://www..oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php
>




-- 
Rex Brooks

President, CEO

Starbourne Communications Design

GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison

Berkeley, CA 94702

Tel: 510-849-2309

Rex Brooks wrote:
> Thanks Patti,
> 
> This is the first time I have heard of this. My question to OASIS would 
> be: How did this get here? I don't recall this company being associated 
> with this OASIS TC, let alone contributing anything that could be 
> claimed to be ipr essential to CAP. I wonder if this is somehow 
> connected to CAP before it was brought under OASIS? A cursory glance at 
> their website indicates that their technology is "wireless" specific and 
> CAP is transport independent.

Dear all,

FYI this patent also applies (of course) to ITU-T Rec. X.1303 (CAP 1.1).
-- 
Olivier DUBUISSON, ITU-T ASN.1 Project leader (including OID)
France Telecom
NSM/RD/DDEV/PST - BP 50702 - 22307 Lannion Cedex - France
tel: +33 2 96 05 38 50 - fax: +33 1 58 15 52 05

How cute!  Baby's first Patent Troll!

I guess I should be worried about someone trying to cash in on the  
multi-million dollar CAP industry, but this one is so absurdly off  
the mark I'm having trouble getting a proper grump on.

(Can't resist quoting from the sidebar on that very page of  
patentstorm.us:

   Today In History 	
   Patent No. 382,280
   May 1, 1888)
   Nikola Tesla granted a patent for the "electrical transmission of  
power".)

I assume there's language on the OASIS site to the effect that  
assertions posted on that page are unverified and that their  
publication there neither establishes nor stipulates their validity?

- Art


On May 1, 2007, at 5/1/07 1:36 PM, Aymond, Patti wrote:

> While reviewing the EDXL-RM document, I found a surprising (to me,  
> anyway) comment on the EM-TC IPR page (http://www.oasis-open.org/ 
> committees/emergency/ipr.php):
>
> “Azos AI, LLC. (Azos) holds United States Patent Number 6,359,970  
> which we believe to be essential to the compliant implementation of  
> the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information  
> Standards (OASIS) Common Alerting Protocol Committee Specification  
> Version 1.1 (the "Specification"). Azos is willing to offer  
> nonexclusive licenses under this issued patent, upon written  
> request from implementers wishing to pursue compliant  
> implementation of the Specification. These licenses will be  
> provided under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and  
> conditions, in accordance with Azos' then current licensing  
> practices.”
>
> Someone seeing this may conclude that a license for Azos AI  
> technology is required for CAP compliance. Do we have any recourse  
> in removing the comment or at least refuting it on the EM-TC IPR page?
>
> Patti
>
>
> Patti Iles Aymond, PhD
> Senior Scientist, Research & Development
>
> Innovative Emergency Management, Inc.
>
> Managing Risk in a Complex World
>
>
> 8555 United Plaza Blvd.   Suite 100
> Baton Rouge, LA 70809
> (225) 952-8228 (phone)
> (225) 952-8122 (fax)
>
>
> IEM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PLEASE READ OUR NOTICE:
> http://www.iem.com/e_mail_confidentiality_notice.html