[JSR358-25] Mandate non-assert Patent Coventants? Created: 06/Jul/12 Updated: 26/Feb/15
|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: