Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Patented XML Compression Techniques (WAS RE: [xml-d ev] Bi
 The GNU forces the cost of that back to the software purchaser and that is unacceptable to some buyers. Some accept the risks; however one defends it, one must. Some use their own IP to defend it. That's smart. The problem here is how IP intersects with standards development. Each organization is setting their own policies, but there are beginning to be breakdowns among some of the organizations that were cooperating to get royalty free standards and specifications. As one is forced back into indemnifying the technology against claims and one way to do that is to own IP, what one bargains away is a scrutinized item. It is a cost of doing business. As I read these RFPs, I see the indemnification clauses in all of them. This isn't new stuff. There is naivete or simple arrogance in denying it is important. Claims that say, "Well, our model produces better technology cheaper if you ignore risks" is not the same deal as a budget airline that can cut costs by not providing services; they still have to step up to the risk management of getting the customer to the destination alive. Let me ask you; if the submarine patents are that scary, what possible good is the W3C royalty-free requirement or any other document for that matter which asserts property claims with regards to technology? Not much. So the common business practice is precisely to document known claims and then to contractually place the ownership of the risk. The GNU contracts make the buyer liable. Common business indemnity clauses make the seller liable. One of IBM's responses to SCO is to cite their own patents, a couple of which look fairly ridiculous too, but, this is the IP value I discussed earlier. The big guys have patent portfolios. The little guys may have some; the ones who are saying they need none are roadkill. len From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@r...] Bullard, Claude L (Len) scripsit: > That is what some are trying to work out. One common approach is to > ensure that each document in the process covers the contingencies > for the next step. For example, the workshop is a little dangerous > if any of the presenters provide information which taints further > work. In an RFP, one details all obligations for submission including > for example, recognition that the submitting the material obligates > the submittor to the IP policies of the organization posting the > RFP. The trouble is that (especially with patents) there may be submarines which neither RFP creator nor proposer is aware of. Your only defense against this is general anti-patent insurance. 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
