RE: [ebxml-dev] CPP/A

[Dale Moberg <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>]

Title: CPP/A

If IBM's intent were tactical, to leverage its IPR arsenal in selective ways,

your reaction  might just be the one that they might be counting on!

Of course, I may just be paranoid.

 

 For example, if patent 6,148,290 were to apply to software implementing

certain usages of ebXML CPPA, it would also

quite probably apply to certain usages made of BPSS by software

as well as certain usages of WSDL --especially WSDL as

used (automatically or not!) to generate code "capable

of enabling interaction and enforcing the rules of interaction"

I am waiting to see how these cards get played myself.

 

RAND terms already apply to SOAP, used in ebXML Messaging.

Are we going to reject all the ebXML specs because of RAND claims?

(RAND= reasonable and nondiscriminatory; RF=royalty free)

 

I agree with at least this much of what you are saying--

I think that the members of OASIS should request

that OASIS revisit its IPR policies. These allow specifications

to go out under RAND terms, and that is your root issue,

not what may happen in the CPPA case. W3C may be moving

toward RF terms for acceptance; it has been hard

for me to tell that this has yet occurred over there. IETF has

insisted on RF terms for some time, at least with anything

mandatory to implement.

 

But it is always possible that someone--

not contributing to a specification in the least--

can pull out some software patent that they claim may

apply to software implementing the specification.

What can standards bodies do in that case?

I am afraid that there is a different root problem

here, and it lies in the patent review process which

has gone a bit wacky.

 

My $.02.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: CRAWFORD, Mark [mailto:MCRAWFORD@lmi.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 10:18 AM
To: ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: [ebxml-dev] CPP/A

David Fischer wrote -

> Actually, v2.0 of CPA is not yet approved by the TC. Perhaps
> we should look into stripping anything proprietary from IBM out of the spec prior to
> acceptance?

Sounds like OASIS is going to have a sticky mess on their hands - as I for one, in my capacity as the LMI OASIS voting rep, will be inclined to vote against any candidate OASIS TS that is not royalty free.

Mark
Mark Crawford
Research Fellow - LMI XML Lead
Vice Chair - OASIS UBL TC
Editor - UN/CEFACT Core Components
______
Logistics Management Institute
2000 Corporate Ridge, McLean, VA 22102-7805
(703) 917-7177   Fax (703) 917-7518
Wireless (703) 655-4810
mcrawford@lmi.org
http://www.lmi.org
"Opportunity is what you make of it"