Russell McOrmond wrote: [...] > deal with some of the worst cases we are currently dealing with.
Care to provide some SPECIFIC example(s) involving IBM? You've mentioned before IETF and OASIS. Well, IETF with its RAND patent licensing policy aside for a moment (http://tinyurl.com/yshn3 and see also http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Section10.txt), I've found the following: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/wsrp/ibm_ipr_statement.shtml "[...] IBM will, upon written request, provide a nonexclusive, royalty free patent license, with other reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions, for those patents issued to IBM which contain claims essential, in IBM's judgment, to implementations of the Specification and for which IBM is able to provide patent licenses (including patents issuing on the published patent applications disclosed above), for implementing the Specification. This patent license is available to all entities. If a party requesting a patent license also has claims essential to the implementation of the Specification (hereafter "Requestor Claims"), IBM will grant this patent license only if the recipient, in return, will grant IBM a reciprocal license, with substantially identical terms and conditions, under the Requestor's Claims. If a party has a license with respect to IBM Essential Claims and acquires, by any means, one or more Requestor Claims and refuses to grant IBM a reciprocal license (with substantially identical terms and conditions) under such Requestor Claims, IBM may suspend or revoke the license IBM granted to such party." "Lawrence E. Rosen" wrote: <in the other thread> [...] > industry standard software. I would welcome IBM's commitment > to THAT goal as well. This can perhaps be accomplished if IBM > and other companies actively support open-source-friendly patent > policies for standards organizations similar to that adopted by > W3C, an effort that IBM has conspicuously refused to make > outside of W3C. Well, here's an example that has really nothing to do with W3C. http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/754/meeting-minutes/02-04-18.html "[...] On the patent Cowlishaw: - It's normal business practice. - Benefit: Could make the encoding public early on. - Problem: Does it stop necessary support? - "RAND" licensing it typical, but because it's an encoding, it's more valuable that it's used at all. Delp: This has to get through parent committees. Cowlishaw: At a minimum, do the base requirement for IEEE. Will look into royalty free licensing. " This is about http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/decimal ("General Decimal Arithmetic") and IBM's US Patents 6,437,715/6,525,679 (equivalents in Europe and Japan aside for a moment), I guess. Now, here's the latest: http://google.com/groups?selm=clcm-20031117-0011%40plethora.net "[...] IBM has already written the necessary formal letter to the IEEE stating that this will be Royalty Free for implementers of the standard (rather than RAND), though RAND is permitted by IEEE rules." regards, alexander. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3