Ryan,
I understand what you are saying and actually suggesting how to support it. :-)
I'm not sure if leaving potential controvercies to resolve on case by case
basis is the best we can do here. Again, this is not about IPR or any other
specific aspect.
By clarifying general interpretation of our own standards we'd help our
auditors to properly manage various jurisdiction specific realities -
exclusions. Take into account the fact that our standards are defacto becoming
indirectly binding requirements.
Even for eIDAS sending a carefully selected Forum's message (that doesn't cross
the red line as you explained below) IMO would contribute to harmonized
implementation of Forum's documents.
Thanks,M.D.
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message --------
From: Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]>
Date: 5/5/2016 02:18 (GMT+02:00)
To: "Moudrick M. Dadashov" <[email protected]>
Cc: Dean Coclin <[email protected]>, CABFPub <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] IPR Exclusion notices
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Moudrick M. Dadashov <[email protected]> wrote:
If not a legal opinion, maybe "common understanding" would still
be useful.
As a simple rule I'd suggest to respect any legally binding
exclusions of a given jurisdiction (to apply to all CAs that do
business in that jurisdiction). Does that make sense?
Moudrick,
I'm not sure who you suggest respects them. The Forum, as a non-legal entity,
cannot declare these as valid or not, nor can Symantec challenge that ruling
(because of the non-legal entity). What we have is a IPR policy that is an
agreement made collectively between the members of the Forum. As such, it's the
necessary role of each member to independently evaluate whether or not
Symantec's exclusion was meeting the obligation of the agreement. If Symantec
were to bring enforcement action on the basis that they believe their
exclusions are valid and conforming with the policy, the question about whether
that is legally accurate is, in effect, a contract dispute, and alternative
legal interpretations may be met. One such interpretation is that it was not
conforming, and as such, any such claim would, if essential, be subject to the
Forum's IPR policy. Another interpretation is that it was conforming. How this
matter gets settled is not something the Forum can declare, but rather one that
would necessarily need to be adjudicated.
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
