jsr358
  1. jsr358
  2. JSR358-25

Mandate non-assert Patent Covenants?

    Details

    • Type: Bug Bug
    • Status: Open
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Component/s: Intellectual Property
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      JSR 306 included language mandating non-assertion patent policies.

      Do we still wish to pursue this?

        Activity

        pcurran created issue -
        pcurran made changes -
        Field Original Value New Value
        Component/s Intellectual Property [ 14518 ]
        Hide
        starksm64 added a comment -

        Red Hat does not support replacement of the patent license grants in the existing JSPA with nonassert covenants.

        Show
        starksm64 added a comment - Red Hat does not support replacement of the patent license grants in the existing JSPA with nonassert covenants.
        Hide
        pcurran added a comment -

        Mike Milinkovich noted on the EG mailing list:

        IANAL, but I think that one difference between non-assertion and royalty-free is that if we go non-assertion, the patent retaliation approach that we had previously discussed would no longer work. If royalty-free patent licenses are granted, you have something to revoke if someone sues for patent infringement. However, I personally have yet to see language that provides the equivalent if you use non-assertion.

        This may not be a big deal, but I just wanted to make sure that we all understand that if we go non-assertion, then we may be losing the ability to use the termination of patent licenses as a defense against litigation.

        Show
        pcurran added a comment - Mike Milinkovich noted on the EG mailing list: IANAL, but I think that one difference between non-assertion and royalty-free is that if we go non-assertion, the patent retaliation approach that we had previously discussed would no longer work. If royalty-free patent licenses are granted, you have something to revoke if someone sues for patent infringement. However, I personally have yet to see language that provides the equivalent if you use non-assertion. This may not be a big deal, but I just wanted to make sure that we all understand that if we go non-assertion, then we may be losing the ability to use the termination of patent licenses as a defense against litigation.
        Hide
        pcurran added a comment - - edited

        Anish Karmarkar has pointed us to three IPR policies that combine non-assertion with defensive termination:

        Show
        pcurran added a comment - - edited Anish Karmarkar has pointed us to three IPR policies that combine non-assertion with defensive termination: OSGi Alliance IPR policy (section 2.1) OASIS IPR policy (section 10.3.2) OMG IPR policy (appendix A, bullet 4)
        pcurran made changes -
        Summary Mandate non-assert Patent Coventants? Mandate non-assert Patent Covenants?

          People

          • Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            pcurran
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            1 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated: