An outline proposal
Gareth_Horton at datawatch.com
Tue Oct 19 22:55:37 CEST 2010
My mistake as to the entity to which "Organizations" referred.
Still, the end effect is the same, a Declaration is required.
In any case, I don't see the problem, PKWARE already claim they have patents in the area themselves:
"Patch support is provided by PKPatchMaker(tm) technology and is
covered under U.S. Patents and Patents Pending. The use or
implementation in a product of certain technological aspects set
forth in the current APPNOTE, including those with regard to
strong encryption, patching, or extended tape operations requires
a license from PKWARE. Please contact PKWARE with regard to
acquiring a license."
"The following is the general layout of the attributes for the
ZIP 64 "extra" block for extended tape operations. Portions of
this extended tape processing technology is covered under a
pending patent application. The use or implementation in a
product of certain technological aspects set forth in the
current APPNOTE, including those with regard to strong encryption,
patching or extended tape operations, requires a license from
PKWARE. Please contact PKWARE with regard to acquiring a license."
I was under the impression that a key goal is to create a format which is compatible with existing zip consumers and producers.
Since PKWARE claim features above and beyond patching, strong encryption and extended tape operations require a license, they simply need to fill in the form and indicate what type of licensing they wish to use.
Alex - this is what makes defining the features that we need before the IPR declaration a rather useless exercise, since the PKWARE statement implies there are more features than they explicitly state which subject to licensing.
I don't see the point in delaying this and neither do the ISO directives.
Can anyone give me a good reason why PKWARE would object to doing this? It seems to be completely innocuous.
If so, then look at the ISO Directives again:
"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."
In my development experience, if you are building a product that will very likely infringe a well known patent, or uses technology that requires licensing - you find out if you can afford the license (or the company is even prepared to sell you a license) before wasting months building a detailed spec that you can't implement.
From: robert_weir at us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir at us.ibm.com]
Sent: 19 October 2010 21:14
To: Horton, Gareth
Cc: ISO Zip
Subject: RE: An outline proposal
And just so my point is clear, I think your paraphrase of the patent policy is askew to the plain meaning of the text.
For example, you said:
"Anyone *outside* the ISO process can inform the Study Group of patents or patents pending."
But the language of the Directives is:
"In addition to the above, any party not participating in Technical Bodies may draw the attention of the Organizations to any known Patent, either their own and/or of any third-party."
But "Organizations" is defined in this section as "ITU , ISO and IEC".
This study group is a "Technical Body" in terms of the patent policy. So the notification in fact goes to ISO, not to this Study Group.
You also said:
"We should sort this out as soon as possible and request that PKWARE submit a Declaration Form so we know where we stand."
But the Directives says this::
"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."
So again, the request comes from ISO, not from the Study Group.
Of course, we really don't have any specification in front of us, so this discussion is premature. Again Directives suggest that in the early stages disclosures may not be possible:
"In this context, the words “from the outset” imply that such information should be disclosed as early as possible during the development of the Recommendation | Deliverable. This might not be possible when the first draft text appears since at this time, the text might be still too vague or subject to subsequent major modifications. Moreover, that information should be provided in good faith and on a best effort basis, but there is no requirement for patent searches."
So not only don't we have a first draft yet, we don't even have a scope.
So starting with a call for patent disclosures as a first item of business before the first meeting of a stage zero study activity seems wildly premature to me. Maybe let's figure out what we want to do, first?
sc34wg1study-bounces at vse.cz wrote on 10/19/2010 03:53:25 PM:
> sc34wg1study-bounces at vse.cz
> "Horton, Gareth" <Gareth_Horton at datawatch.com> wrote on 10/19/2010
> 03:00:49 PM:
> > We should sort this out as soon as possible and request that PKWARE
> > submit a Declaration Form so we know where we stand.
> Gareth, please show me exactly where it the Directives call on a WG to
> request that a company submit a Declaration Form?
> sc34wg1study mailing list
> sc34wg1study at vse.cz
More information about the sc34wg1study