[xacml] RE: ContentGuard IPR Declaration for OASIS re. XACML

Title: Re: ContentGuard IPR Declaration for OASIS re. XACML

Hi 
Bruce,

 

Once again, thank you 
for responding.  I have copied the XACML TC because this topic is of great 
interest to all the members.

 

Yes, the patent numbers 
can be found on the ContentGuard Web site.  Yes, there was speculation 
shortly after the formation of the TC regarding whether these might be relevant 
to its work.  But idle speculation cannot help an implementer make a 
decision.  Most implementers are not trained patent lawyers can cannot 
easily make such a determination.  This is precisely why we repeatedly 
asked ContentGuard for its opinion.  Waiting until the specification was 
frozen, formally approved, and ready to submit to OASIS before giving 
such an opinion appears to be behaviour specifically calculated to undermine the 
efforts of this TC and the progress of this specification.  The 
features and functionality of XACML have been frozen for a long time; only 
the specific syntax to achieve that functionality has been evolving.  
ContentGuard could have made its statement many months ago (in accordance with 
the encouraged behaviour specified in the OASIS IPR 
policy).

 

As for your statement 
that my previous e-mail "would appear to engage OASIS in 
"evaluating the applicability " of our patent claims", this is completely 
false.  The e-mail was crystal clear (in fact, could not possibly have been 
more clear) that we were asking ContentGuard for this evaluation.  The 
XACML specification says exactly what areas it covers; we would like to know 
which of those areas (if any) ContentGuard feels may infringe its 
IP.

 

My understanding of your 
text below is that what is important and relevant is not the XACML specification 
itself, but rather whether an implementation incorporating that specification 
infringes.  Thank you for this clarification.

 

Carlisle.

 

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Gitlin, Bruce 
  [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 
  2002 8:47 AM
To: Karl F. Best
Cc: Gandee, Brad; Carlisle 
  Adams
Subject: Re: ContentGuard IPR Declaration for OASIS re. 
  XACML

  
Karl: 
  
I would 
  like to respond to your e-mail of December 3. First, the five patents are from 
  1994. A listing of the patents can be found on the ContentGuard Web site 
  (www.contentguard.com/patents.asp <http://www.contentguard.com/patents.asp>) and from there you can link directly to the USPTO 
  site and see the patents themselves. This information has been on our web site 
  for quite a while.

  
We have consistently told the XACML TC that we 
  would make an IPR statement when the specification was frozen for review. We 
  made it clear that we did not believe it appropriate to make a statement on 
  the TC's work in progress, only to have to do it over because the 
  specification and intended uses changed. Anyone in the XACML TC, or elsewhere, 
  could have looked at our patents at any time to decide if they might have 
  essential claims. All they had to do was go to our web site. Furthermore, the 
  XACML TC identified some of our patents as being important right after the TC 
  was formed.  Indeed, as early as June of 2001 several of our patents were 
  listed on the XACML web site as possibly being "relevant" to the work of the 
  TC.  

  
We think what is important, at this point, is 
  not which patents we hold, but the RAND declaration. The OASIS IPR Policy 
  Section 3.2 (C) provides for the Executive Director to seek a written 
  assurance from someone who makes an IPR claim that anyone can obtain the right 
  to implement on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms.  Note 
  that we have provided such assurance (although are not obligated to) at the 
  time of our IPR declaration, eliminating this extra step.

  
The OASIS.IPR Policy Section 3.2(B) states 
  that the OASIS Board of Directors disclaims any responsibility for identifying 
  the existence of or for evaluating the applicability of any claimed 
  copyrights, patents, patent applications, or other rights, and will take no 
  position on the validity or scope of any such rights. While Carlisle Adams' 
  e-mail may be well intentioned, it would appear to engage OASIS in "evaluating 
  the applicability " of our patent claims.  Furthermore we do not believe 
  it is appropriate to engage in such an exercise. The relevant question is not 
  necessarily what part of a specification may infringe, but whether an 
  implementation incorporating such a specification infringes. In the case of 
  XACML we have said that its use may infringe, 
  not that it definitely does. Any useful evaluation would start with 
  understanding a specific system and how the specification is implemented. This 
  is appropriately done by the party who has designed the system and who best 
  understands how the specification will be implemented. 

  
We hope that the XACML TC can view as a 
  positive the fact that if an implementation of the specification infringes, we 
  are committed to our IPR declaration. We encourage implementers to discuss 
  their systems and intended uses directly with us. 

  
Bruce 

  
Bruce Gitlin 
VP, Business Development 
ContentGuard Inc. 
240-694-1223