An outline proposal
Gareth_Horton at datawatch.com
Tue Oct 19 21:00:49 CEST 2010
Here's the/full/ text of section 5 of the 2009 Directives:
"Early disclosure of Patents contributes to the efficiency of the process by which Recommendations | Deliverables are established.
Therefore, each Technical Body, in the course of the development of a proposed Recommendation | Deliverable, will request the disclosure of any known Patents essential to the proposed Recommendation | Deliverable.
Chairmen of Technical Bodies will ..."
So, the chairman MUST ask the question if anyone has knowledge of any patents in the area.
Here's what must happen, according to the directives (Section 3 of the Patent Policy):
Experts may say they are aware of (patents and patents pending), even though they are not the patent holders/submitters and refer to the patents in question.
Patent holders should affirm and refer to their patents.
Anyone *outside* the ISO process can inform the Study Group of patents or patents pending.
The patents / identifying information (by reference, the patent holders) are recorded in the minutes.
The Study Group must make a request to the potential patent holder to make a declaration as per Section 3 of the patent policy:
"Any communication drawing the attention to any third-party Patent should be addressed to the concerned Organization(s) in writing. The potential Patent Holder will then be requested by the relevant Organization(s) to submit a Declaration Form."
Since it is likely that in this area, the patent holders - and I am assuming they are part of this study group, are also aware of their patents, they will therefore submit a Declaration Form.
At this point (Section 3 again)
"Whether the identification of the Patent took place before or after the approval of the Recommendation | Deliverable, if the Patent Holder is unwilling to license under paragraph 2.1 or 2.2 of the Patent Policy, the Organizations will promptly advise the Technical Bodies responsible for the affected Recommendation | Deliverable so that appropriate action can be taken.
Such action will include, but may not be limited to, a review of the Recommendation | Deliverable or its draft in order to remove the potential conflict or to further examine and clarify the technical considerations causing the conflict."
So, if the patent holder does not agree to license on a FRAND or RAND basis, action must be taken.
We should sort this out as soon as possible and request that PKWARE submit a Declaration Form so we know where we stand.
From: sc34wg1study-bounces at vse.cz [mailto:sc34wg1study-bounces at vse.cz] On Behalf Of robert_weir at us.ibm.com
Sent: 19 October 2010 18:18
To: ISO Zip
Subject: Re: An outline proposal
sc34wg1study-bounces at vse.cz wrote on 10/19/2010 11:54:41 AM:
> sc34wg1study-bounces at vse.cz
> On 19 October 2010 14:57, Bob Jolliffe <bobjolliffe at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Agreed. What is actually in the zipfile is:
> > from http://www.pkware.com/documents/casestudies/APPNOTE.TXT
> So that's how pkware do it?
> Which puts it out of scope if we accept my proposal 1.1?
> If it is encumbered, which some in ISO seem to believe.
The Application Note is the specification of ZIP that is followed by several vendors and is the specification that is normatively referenced by ODF, OOXML, W3C Widgets and EPUB specifications.
I think we need to read the Application Note. I assume you have not read it, since just a few minutes ago it sounded like you didn't know what it was.
In any case, I think we need to avoid violating ISO/IEC Directives by discussing certain matters which we are explicitly told not to discuss.
ISO/IEC Directives, section 5:
"Chairmen of Technical Bodies will, if appropriate, ask, at an appropriate time in each meeting, whether anyone has knowledge of Patents, the use of which may be required to practice or implement the Recommendation | Deliverable being considered. The fact that the question was asked shall be recorded in the meeting report, along with any affirmative responses.
As long as the Organization concerned has received no indication of a Patent Holder selecting paragraph 2.3 of the Patent Policy, the Recommendation | Deliverable may be approved using the appropriate and respective rules of the Organization concerned. It is expected that discussions in Technical Bodies will include consideration of including patented material in a Recommendation | Deliverable, however the Technical Bodies may not take position regarding the essentiality, scope, validity or specific licensing terms of any claimed Patents"
In other words, we ask for disclosures, and if none are given, then we move on. And if any are given, they are not given to the WG, but are filed via a disclosure to ISO, and we still move on, since we are explicitly told that we "may not take position regarding the essentiality, scope, validity or specific licensing terms of any claimed Patents"
So I'm reading this as saying that discussion of the applicability or validity of a patent to this specification is out of order, but that were a patent disclosure has been made, we can discuss whether or not to include that technology.
sc34wg1study mailing list
sc34wg1study at vse.cz
More information about the sc34wg1study