Abbie,
The jist of the points made in this
thread can be summed up as: "what is the rationale for using RAND
mode for this TC".
In all of the responses that I've seen
thus far from those such as yourself who advocate the RAND mode is: "because".
Jeff's note below asks some compelling
questions. Frankly, I don't think that your responses address the points
he made
or the questions he posed.
As Jeff points out, it is one thing
to use RAND for an effort for which it is reasonably expected that the
output will
read on Essential Claims for which the
owner of said claims wishes to charge a royalty. Again, that is their prerogative.
That is not the point of the pushback
here. Those who are questioning the choice of RAND mode are really trying
to
understand how a set of _requirements_
would include content that read on Essential Claims of some member(s) of
the
TC?
Cheers,
Christopher Ferris
IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Industry Standards
IBM Software Group, Standards Strategy
email:
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
phone: +1 508 234 2986
From:
"Abbie Barbir" <>
To:
"Jeff Mischkinsky" <>,
"Patrick Durusau" <>
Cc:
<>
Date:
11/20/2008 06:30 AM
Subject:
RE: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for
Requirements?
Jeff,
See inline
Regards
Abbie
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Mischkinsky [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 9:52 PM
To: Patrick Durusau
Cc: Barbir, Abbie (CAR:1A14);
Subject: Re: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?
hi,
+1 to patrick's comments plus
1. I simply don't understand the assertion that because some other
telcom forums are RAND, this will simplify the operation of the TC.
Only Members of the TC may make "contributions" to the TC. Under
OASIS
rules the member making the contribution is asserting that they have the
right to make that contribution. The other forums are not making the
contribution as they are not members of the TC. So i can't quite figure
out how the ipr mode of the TC has any impact.
Abbie - can you provide a concrete example of how it matters.
------- Abbie
So are you assuming that we will have distinct members. Companies send
people to more than one SDO and they can contribute per as make sense to
move the work in harmony. Having a common IPR mode enables better
cooperation and involvement by Telecom companies. Most telecom companies
will not participate in a non-RAND TC. In addition, we can have Laision
arrangements where comon points can be discussed.
------------------------------------
2. The assertion made by the proposers of this TC is you don't have to
worry because no IPR will be created. Note this is simply an assertion.
It may or may not be true. We don't know. We will find out at some time
after the TC approves spec and someone tries to use its output if they
will be faced with a demand to buy a license.
It is very easy to turn the argument around. If no ipr is to be created
than surely there is no reason why it couldn't be chartered under RF on
Limited terms. Since no one will be contributing any IPR, there won't be
anything to license. So why can't the proposers stand up and say this in
a binding way?
------- Abbie
Jeff, I really do not undertand your logic here. You seem to forget that
most telecom related work in done in RAND bodies. Are you saying that if
the work is not done on RF on limited terms you will not get a dial tone
when you lift your receiver???
----------------------------------------
2 notes:
1. I am using the term create IPR here loosely. What is really meant is
the specs produced by the TC won't have any Essential Claims owned by
the members of the TC which would be subject to licensing requirements
by the owner of the Essential Claim.
2. I am NOT saying that a RAND TC is always inappropriate. If in fact
the proposers of a TC do think there will be Essential Claims that read
on the specs produced by the TC, and that the owners should be allowed
to charge for those licenses, then it might be appropriate.
------- Abbie
Jeff, not every RAND work lead to royalties. I am glad that you say that
OASIS can be inclusive. Have a nice day.
------------------------------------------------------
cheers,
jeff
On Nov 19, 2008, at 6:28 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> Abbie,
>
> Abbie Barbir wrote:
>> Patrick
>> RAND is a common mode of operation for Telecom industry.
>> This has nothing to do with marketing, it only has to do with
>> allowing Telecom providers to operate in SDO using the same
>> environment that they are used to.
>>
>>
> RAND is an *uncommon* mode at OASIS, although clearly permitted.
>
> Perhaps we have different definitions of *marketing* if "allowing
> Telecom providers to operate in SDO using the same environments that
> they are used to" isn't marketing.
>
> Quite frankly I would not deceive even a Telecom provider in order
to
> get them to participate in OASIS.
>
> The work product of the TC appears to not be subject to RAND in any
> meaningful way.
>
> If it were, that would have been your first response.
>
> So, let's simply tell the Telecom providers the truth, that RAND is
> meaningless for requirements and by extension for this TC.
>
> Unless there is some problem with truth telling as a strategy?
>
> Hope you are having a great day!
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>> Have a nice day
>> Regards
>> Abbie
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday,
>> November 19, 2008 7:25 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?
>>
>> Greetings!
>>
>> The reasons given for RAND for this TC:
>>
>> Orit Levin:
>>
>>> 1. This TC is NOT going to produce any technical specifications.
>>> 2. This TC is about gathering requirements backed up by use
cases
>>> and scenarios and their applicability to existing technologies.
>>> 3. This TC is about bringing as many as possible telecoms
and
>>> vendors working in the Telecom area who feel most comfortable
with
>>> RAND to contribute to the discussion.
>>>
>> and, Abbie Barbir:
>>
>>
>>> Plus I would add that we will be dealing with other SDO such
as TM
>>> Forum, ITU-T etc.. and working closely with them to
get
>>> requirements from their documents. These SDO operate under
RAND and
>>> as such this make the flow of information between the OASIS
SOA TC
>>> and the other SDO more fluid.
>>>
>> Seem very unpersuasive to me.
>>
>> First, I can't say that I am familiar with the practice of treating
>> requirements as IPR. Can someone point me to known legal authority
>> for the notion that a requirement is subject to some vendor's
IPR?
>> (Granting
>> that if I publish a book with a list of requirements, my statement
of
>> the requirement may be copyrighted, i.e., "Text must be presented
in
>> a
>> *bold* font." (copyright Patrick Durusau 2008) but the substance
of
>> the requirement itself, that is that users want to use *bold*
text, I
>> don't think is subject to any IPR claim.)
>>
>> Second, from what has been said the TC doesn't intend to produce
>> anything that is subject to any known IPR claim, thereby rendering
>> RAND rather meaningless.
>>
>> Third, following up on Abbie's comment, is making this TC operate
>> under RAND a marketing strategy to make it more attractive to
vendors
>> who aren't advised well enough to realize that requirements are
not
>> subject to IPR? Or who take false comfort from committees that
>> operate under RAND?
>>
>> While I am all for marketing OASIS as much as the next person
I think
>> offering meaningless RAND on material that cannot be the subject
of
>> IPR is a very bad marketing strategy. What do we say to those
vendors
>> who falsely took our word that the requirements produced by this
TC
>> were subject to RAND? Some dreaded FOSS group implements technology
>> to meet those requirements more cheaply and efficiently than
>> commercial vendors.
>>
>> Then what do we say? No, let's be honest up front with all our
>> members, even commercial vendors.
>>
>> BTW, I think anyone who charters a TC under RAND should have to
>> specify what IP is being contributed under what conditions so
that
>> OASIS members can make a determination as to whether they wish
to
>> participate or not. As far as I can tell at this point, neither
>> Microsoft nor Nortel have any IP as traditionally understood to
>> contribute to this TC. So, why the RAND? (Other than for false
>> advertising purposes.)
>>
>> Hope everyone is having a great day!
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> --
>> Patrick Durusau
>>
>> Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
>> Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format
>> TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1,
>> 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC
that
>> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in
OASIS at:
>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/
>> my_workgroups.php
>>
>>
>
> --
> Patrick Durusau
>
> Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
> Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format
TC
> (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1,
> 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS
at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
--
Jeff Mischkinsky
Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware
+1(650)506-1975
and Web Services Standards
500
Oracle Parkway, M/S 2OP9
Oracle
Redwood
Shores, CA 94065
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
