[JSR358-25] Mandate non-assert Patent Covenants? Created: 06/Jul/12  Updated: 01/Apr/15

Status: Open
Project: jsr358
Component/s: Intellectual Property
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: None

Type: Bug Priority: Major
Reporter: pcurran Assignee: Unassigned
Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0
Labels: None
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified
Original Estimate: Not Specified


JSR 306 included language mandating non-assertion patent policies.

Do we still wish to pursue this?

Comment by starksm64 [ 31/Jul/12 ]

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

Comment by pcurran [ 24/Feb/15 ]

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.

Comment by pcurran [ 26/Feb/15 ]

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

Generated at Sat Aug 27 06:16:54 UTC 2016 using JIRA 6.2.3#6260-sha1:63ef1d6dac3f4f4d7db4c1effd405ba38ccdc558.