| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Bob
"Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I" wrote:
Bob Spillers: If I interpret your note correctly the SUMO is not publicRGS: Most standards are a description of how a software product or some other product should be made in order to conform to the standards document. Since this is potentially a part of a product (say a commercial search engine) its purpose would be to sell it or its function to customers. There aren't a great deal of legal complications to claiming conformance even if you don't conform - maybe your competitors will make it an issue or in the worst case one might have to retract the conformance claim. If one uses code one does not own without the proper rights, one is giving the IP owners a share of their revenues - both the owners of the IP and how large a share to be determined by some legal process.
domain.J. Schoening: Yes, SUMO, IFF and all other standards developed by all other
SDOs are not 'public domain.' They are copyrighted.Bob Spillers: This means it is not freely usable by anyone for any reason.
J. Schoening: You couldn't change it and release it as your own standard, or
you couldn't sell copies. However, IEEE has given us permission to post the
document (in draft and final) on the web for free downloading by anyone.
Anyone can use this standard for any product, research, or just about any
other purpose that I can think of, as they can with other IEEE standards.
Can you think of an example of a use that would be restricted?
If people on this list have contributed to the SUMO and have not signed a well drafted IP release, they own a share of the IP - regardless of whether the IEEE or Teknowledge ultimately retains the copyright. There are more difficult issues - assume one signs a well drafted IP release to IEEE and the SUMO does not become a standard. In this event (and absent some specific agreement among the parties) I believe the IP reverts to its contributor. If it reverted to Teknowledge then the IEEE would have a very significant problem with the IRS about its non profit status - see Lee Auspitz's notes on this issue, I believe the IEEE Institute is taking his comments very seriously.
The principle is the same with the copyright of an ordinary standard, but is rare that any significant revenue would be associated an ordinary standard. It seems extremely unlikely that someone would sue the IEEE for infringement of copyright of a paper or electronic ordinary standard - what damages could one collect if one won the case?
If one sued a major vendor for copyright infringement the revenue stream involved would be clear and damages could be significant. In cases of which I am aware, the damages were in the hundreds of millions of dollars. My former company (I am retired) sued and collected - there are other examples. Legal expenses can easily be in the tens of millions of dollars - in some cases in which I have participated where we were sued, the total costs (not just legal fees) were in the hundreds of millions of dollars -all of those cases went to the Supreme Court; we won.
RGS: I doubt the IEEE would do more than a pro forma effort - see my comments above regarding legal expenses.
Bob Spillers: NOTE: Having had some experience with these issues at a very
large
corporation with more patents than any other company, unless you have
well drafted signed IP releases from ALL contributors the copyright
means very little.J. Schoening: Good point. If someone contributes their own Intellectual
Property (IP) to the SUO WG, that is considered 'Work for Hire' and IEEE
gains the right to change and distribute it. The risk is that someone
brings in an outsider's IP without their written permission. It is my job
to make sure this doesn't happen and I have informed both the SUMO and IFF
teams they must guard against this.Bob Spillers: Does the IEEE stand behind its copyright (i.e. will
it defend the copyright in litigation at its own expense)?Jim Schoening: Yes.
RGS: SUO members should ask themselves if they contributed and if they signed an IP release. If not, the IEEE has a partial copyright. You own a part of it. If this is just a general description of how something should be made in order to conform, you don't own much. If it is code (specific axioms, etc.) you own whatever it is worth - IMHO still not much. The issue is that whatever its value might be vendors will not use it without clear rights.Bob Spillers: For most companies the choices are ironclad copyright/patent
or unambiguous public domain.Jim Schoening: IEEE has an ironclad copyright, but people can use the
standard for products and most other purposes without cost. They cover
costs by selling copies of the documents, not charging for its use.
RGS: It depends. If the code is obviously trivial and its value is simply the general agreement to do something in a particular manner and there do not appear to be copyright problems - it is not usually a problem. At a large company this will still receive careful attention by IP lawyers.
Bob Spillers: Just claiming one's product "conforms" to some high level
description is
different than incorporating actual code. If the product doesn't
actually "conform" there might be a marketing blitz (by competitors) to
point this out. Using code without having clear rights to it is very
risky and the larger the revenue the higher the risk.Jim Schoening: So, you're concerned that products will incorporate actual
content (or code) from the SUO standard. But isn't this common with many
standards and products? I don't see a problem with a vendor doing this.
Can you site an a similar example where a vendor was prevented from using a
standard in this manner?
If the code actually adds function to a product
for which a differential revenue stream can be established it is a major
problem. It is the same as any other IP property. Is there
an ironclad copyright or is it
unambiguously in the public domain (to some extent
the same issue). If not, most large companies won't use it.
begin:vcard n:Spillers;Robert Grayson tel;work:650-851-1135 x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:Spillers Consulting adr:;;136 Bardet Road ;Woodside;California;94062;USA version:2.1 email;internet:skydog@pacbell.net fn:Robert Grayson Spillers end:vcard