Re: [chairs] Re-visiting IPR and OASIS

Hal,

 

Thanks for taking the time to root out this 
document for me.

 

 http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/10/innovationrpt.pdf

 

Some thoughts - this document falls between two 
stools - while it

references the situation in the software industry - 
it still veers 

back toward patents in the large.

 

It does give a good view into the current status 
quo and 

modus operandi around us.

 

But it also makes no reference to standards bodies 
and the type

of work we do in OASIS and how this fits in - (I 
may have missed

something in my speed reading - but nothing 
jumped out - and

especially not in the 
Conclusions).

 

Including software into patents has been an 
experiment.  I think

its time the PTO and FTC admitted this is a failure 
- because it

has had the result of changing the process of 
software innovation

for the worse, not the better.  You could now 
make a strong 

case for reversing this decision and excluding 
software entirely.

 

Blackbox v Whitebox - what we do in OASIS is 
develop whitebox

specifications.  Blackbox stuff is things like 
I used to work-on - 

like parallel processing algorithms for computer 
detection

of image patterns in image bitstreams.  This 
is delivered as

a compiled library - where the code has been 
obfuscated

and reverse engineering of the inner algorithms is 
harder

than just developing your own algorithms.  
Time to market

factors negate any patent protection in 
anycase.

 

So - I would argue that whitebox development by its 
very

nature is likely to always be around obvious and 
unpatentable

concepts and especially in an open standard 
community - 

because if it ain't obvious - your adoption rates 
are going to

be low!

 

Be that as it may - the other problem I see 
with patents

and software is the level of research effort 
compared to the 

redress afforded in patent liability law.  
It's like handing

every terrorist who wants one an atomic bomb.  
If 

software patents are to continue - then there needs 
to

be a graduated scale of liability.  Anyway - I 
don't want

to take up bandwidth here discussing all this in 
detail.

 

Back to the point at hand - which is I'm still not 
seeing

how the OASIS IPR changes afford any 
protection 

except to encourage 
and foster yet more IPR by 

acknowledging that we might have processes that IPR 

applies too in the 
first place!

 

This is why I was arguing that we need options 
that

allow TC's to specifically distance their work from 

any form of IPR so as to keep a clear and 
visible

distinction in place.

 

This particularly applies to open source 

implementations and the sub-licensing 
proposed

options which clearly conflict.  We see 
that

the Apache project and IETF are taking clear 

stands on this - so why are we adopting 
policies

that potentially inhibit use of our specifications 
in 

such environments?

 

This still has not been resolved here that I have 

seen - other than directives that "it's in there - 
trust us".

 

For those TCs effected by this - I don't believe 
we

have a clear and simple option that can 
support

the basis of their existing work going forward 
here

in 2005.  But maybe that's the whole point - 
to

make IPR the norm, not the exception, and 
thus

fundamentally change the nature of "open 

specifications"?

 

DW

 

  
----- Original Message ----- 

  
From: 
  Hal Lockhart 
  

  
To: David RR Webber ; Chairs OASIS 

  
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 10:54 
  AM

  
Subject: RE: [chairs] Re-visiting IPR and 
  OASIS

  

  
I am 
  surprised there is no mention of the FTC proposals for reforming the US patent 
  system, which are intended to address some of the problems specifically 
  mentioned in the paper.

  
 

  
Hal

  
    
-----Original Message-----
From: David RR Webber 
    [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 2:22 
    PM
To: Chairs OASIS
Subject: [chairs] Re-visiting IPR 
    and OASIS

    
Team,

    
 

    
The article here provides many insights and 
    raises questions.

    
 

    
It would be interesting to have feedback from 
    OASIS on exactly

    
how many of the issues raised are specifically 
    addressed by

    
the proposed IPR changes for OASIS - as I'm 
    sure as Chairs

    
we are going to get asked these same questions 
    by our

    
constituents.

    
 

    
Thanks, DW

    
===============================================

    
 

    
The Problem of Software Patents in Standards
Bruce Perens, Paper for 
    Brussels FFII "Regulating Knowledge" Conference

Patents, originally 
    created to stimulate innovation, may now be having
the opposite effect, 
    at least in the software industry. Plagued by an
exponential growth in 
    software patents, many of which are not valid,
software vendors and 
    developers must navigate a potential minefield to
avoid patent 
    infringement and future lawsuits. Coupled with strategies
to exploit this 
    confusion over patents, especially in standards setting
organizations, it 
    appears that software advancement will become stifled
unless legal action 
    is taken to resolve the situation. This article
examines the current 
    situation facing software developers and users,
the methods employed by 
    standards setting organizations to address
these problems, and recommends 
    strategies for resolving the problem
caused by software 
    patents.

http://www.perens.com/Articles/PatentFarming.html
See 
    also the Conference Program: 
http://en.eu.ffii.org/sections/bxl0411/program/