Re: SUO: Bob's Questions on copyright

[Robert Grayson Spillers <skydog@postoffice.pacbell.net>]

Jim,
Your responses show a remarkable lack of understanding of basic IP
law.  No one can legally give up their rights to any IP unless they
do so explicitly.  Although one can do so verbally (still it must
be explicit), no company would accept a release unless it is in writing. 
Certain elements are required for any contract (copyright release or other
contract) to be valid and what you (and Frank) describe does not contain
the necessary elements.

When dollar values are low people can make the whatever claims they wish without much penalty.  When dollar values are large it is a very different case.

Who gave you the information about IEEE copyrights - particularly "work for hire"?

Bob
 

"Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I" wrote:

  Bob Spillers: 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. 

Jim Schoening:  This is not true.  If someone contributes IP to a document being worked on by an IEEE standards WG, they have given IEEE permission to change and distribute it. The legal term is "work for hire."   They don't technically need to sign anything.  It is smart to get a copyright release letter for large contributions, and I have been working with both document champions to get them. 

Bob Spillers: 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.

Jim Schoening:  The IP was never given up by the contributor.  They still retain rights to the version that was submitted.  They just gave IEEE rights to change and distribute it.   If it didn't become a standard, IEEE would still own full rights to the changed document, which could probably be transfered if the various stakeholders agreed. 

Bob Spillers: 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.

Jim Schoening: If SUMO received input from members, but didn't become a standard, I don't believe IEEE would ever give the rights to the later versions of SUMO back to just one company.  Teknowledge would have retained rights to their original submission, but that would not include the inputs from the members. 

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.

Jim Schoening:  This is not true.  If people contribute IP to any documents the SUO WG is working on, they need to understand they are giving IEEE permission to change and distribute it.  They can never ask for compensation unless a written agreement is established up front.  They still retain their own rights to do as they wish with the version of the IP they submitted.  Bottom line, if you don't want IEEE to change or distribute your IP, don't contribute it.  This is how standards groups work.  I don't see an issue.

Jim Schoening 
 
 
 

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