Please, Katharina, read the mail I´ve just send to you all
If I pretend to get rid of some disagreeable partners I would not have been involved in the 1443 mails that I have in my FIWARE folder. I kindly ask you to be more respectful in your mails
Regards
Luis
De: Kamecke, Katharina [mailto:katharina.kamecke at SIEMENS.COM]
Enviado el: miércoles, 07 de septiembre de 2011 9:55
Para: Weikl, Susanne (NSN - DE/Munich); LUIS GARCIA GARCIA; Schweppe, Kathrin; Du Besset Mathilde; robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com; Bettina.Lehmann at telekom.de; fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de; SUZANNE at il.ibm.com
CC: thierry.nagellen at orange-ftgroup.com; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; fiware-legal at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-legal-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu
Asunto: AW: [Fiware-legal] FI-WARE CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT
Hello Luis,
I don't understand your way of acting. What is your intention? To get rid of disagreeable partners?
You should be a neutral moderator of the negotiations. Instead you are acting on behalf of a minority and at the same time threatening to kick the other partners out of the project.
If you expect the other partners to give in due to your threatening then you will be barking up the wrong tree.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen/Best regards
____________________________________
Rechtsanwältin Katharina Kamecke, LL.M.oec.
Legal Counsel
Siemens AG
Corporate Legal and Compliance
CL CS CU CT and IP
Otto-Hahn-Ring 6
81739 München, Deutschland
Tel.: +49 (89) 636-30128
Fax: +49 (89) 636-50441
Mobil: +49 (173) 9738756
mailto:katharina.kamecke at siemens.com<mailto:arne.ibbeken at siemens.com>
Siemens Aktiengesellschaft: Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Gerhard Cromme; Vorstand: Peter Löscher, Vorsitzender; Roland Busch, Brigitte Ederer, Klaus Helmrich, Joe Kaeser, Barbara Kux, Hermann Requardt, Siegfried Russwurm, Peter Y. Solmssen, Michael Süß; Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin und München, Deutschland; Registergericht: Berlin Charlottenburg, HRB 12300, München, HRB 6684; WEEE-Reg.-Nr. DE 23691322
________________________________
Von: fiware-legal-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-legal-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Im Auftrag von Weikl, Susanne (NSN - DE/Munich)
Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. September 2011 18:46
An: ext LUIS GARCIA GARCIA; Schweppe, Kathrin; Du Besset Mathilde; robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com; Bettina.Lehmann at telekom.de; fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de; SUZANNE at il.ibm.com
Cc: thierry.nagellen at orange-ftgroup.com; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; fiware-legal at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-legal-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu
Betreff: Re: [Fiware-legal] FI-WARE CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT
Hello Luis,
please stick with the facts:
I.
Alcatel Lucent, Fraunhofer, FT, Intel, NSN, Siemens, Technicolor and Thales expressly stated that they support or can accept the proposal. This represents 11 out of 26 participating partners.
DTAG, Telefonica and IBM participated in the discussion and have not stated that they cannot accept this proposal. This is another 4 participants.
Regarding the other partners which have not expressed any opinion, it is fair to say that we have seen little or no involvement in the whole process (with the exception of NEC and ATOS).
II.
The only partner who is objecting the proposal is SAP. With all due respect and despite all those discussion we have had in the recent days, we still fail to understand what SAP's problem with the proposal is.
We do not even have a dispute on the underlying principle, nevertheless SAP has not made use of the invitatation to address the matter in a different manner, if they are not ok with the proposal.
III.
Nobody wants to work on a legal notice (proposal 3). We have an internal discussion on the item already (proposal 2).
IV.
What Telefonica should do as a neutral coordinator, is to bring the ongoing discussions to a close. We respectfully suggest, you either talk to SAP about the fact of having a clear majority supporting the amendment or set up a confcall so it can be finally discussed between the Parties.
A threat that companies should withdraw from the project should they not follow a minority opinion, or a second unilateral declaration that the dissussions are finished when they are not, is not helpful and not the idea NSN has of a coordinator taking the job seriously.
Best Regards
Susanne
From: ext LUIS GARCIA GARCIA [mailto:lgg at tid.es]
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 5:47 PM
To: Schweppe, Kathrin; Weikl, Susanne (NSN - DE/Munich); Du Besset Mathilde; robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com; Bettina.Lehmann at telekom.de; fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de; SUZANNE at il.ibm.com
Cc: thierry.nagellen at orange-ftgroup.com; fiware-legal at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-legal-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu; JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; JOSE LUIS PEÑA SEDANO
Subject: RE: [Fiware-legal] FI-WARE CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT
Dear all,
Telefónica I+D, as Coordinator of the FIWARE Project, must look for a consensus in the CA. Having in mind this idea, we´ve been studying the NSN/ALCALTEL proposal for clause 4.1 and understand that it is an important point that cannot be ignored. In that sense, and as several partners request that change, we would be in a position to accept the proposed modification (preferably under the France Telecom version sent by Robert Sarrazine).
However, as you may see, there are partners that reject the changes and see some uncertainty in this point. Also, many others have not sent their approval/ rejection to this modification. This question requires a deeper debate among the partners but unfortunately we have no time for further discussions.
The GA was signed the 2nd August and we have 45 days to send the Form A signed of all the partners involved. Except I´m wrong, this term expires next 16th September, some partners have still not sent their signed Form A. We will have a problem if we don´t reach this imperative term established by the Commission.
>From our perspective, the question of "reciprocity" for third parties using the FIWARE specifications to make implementations can be handled in the "legal notice" to be included in these specifications; however, if the majority of the partners believe that an amendment of the CA is required, we can discuss it in depth in the following days (perhaps a conference call is required at this point).
Unfortunately, we must act, and we must act now. So, Telefónica I+D, as Coordinator of the FIWARE CA, proposes the following:
1º.- Sign the CA (and the Collaboration Agreement) accordingly with the instructions and the version we sent in our mail of 22nd August. Also, those partners that still have not send the signed Form A of the GA, must send it now (please forward one scanned copy to us ASAP)
2º.- Open an internal discussion to see the best way to handle the question of "reciprocity" of third parties using the specifications for implementations.
3º.- Work in a "legal notice" in the Specifications, that will govern the use by third parties of these specifications for implementations, establishing any necessary rules to protect us of the undesirable effect that NSN pointed out in Susanne mail:
"What is avoided thereby is that a Party can use all the specification free of charge and block all the rest of the world from using the specifications, should it have a patent which it essentially needed for the implementation of the Specification."
Once we have the text of this Legal notice, decide whether or not it´s necessary to make an amendment to the CA.
We hereby compromise ourselves to work for a common agreed solution at this point.
Find enclosed again the final version of the CA, NSN has modified the wording in its exclusion list in annex 3, that´s all. If any partner does not agree with the proposed text and is not going to sign the CA, we kindly ask them to notify us ASAP to start any necessary actions to manage their exit from the project.
Now, it´s time to sign.
Regards
Luis García García
Asesoria Jurídica // Legal Department
Tfnos: +34 914832614 // +34913129666
Telefónica Investigación y Desarrollo, S.A.Unipersonal
DISTRITO C- Edificio Oeste 1, 5ª planta
Ronda de la Comunicación s/n
28050-Madrid (España)
[cid:image001.png at 01CC6D8F.9C526C20]
De: fiware-legal-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-legal-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] En nombre de Schweppe, Kathrin
Enviado el: martes, 06 de septiembre de 2011 14:44
Para: Weikl, Susanne (NSN - DE/Munich); Du Besset Mathilde; robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com; Bettina.Lehmann at telekom.de; fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de; SUZANNE at il.ibm.com
CC: thierry.nagellen at orange-ftgroup.com; fiware-legal at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-legal-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu
Asunto: Re: [Fiware-legal] FI-WARE CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT
Hello Susanne,
I have the problem with exactly this wording in the second paragraph.
It poses additional conditions only upon third parties. This gives the impression that third parties have to bear certain obligations, other than parties who signed the Fi-Ware Agreement. Secondly, it might be discriminatory because only Parties signing the CA receive the GE Specs upon royalty-free conditions without other conditions. Thirdly, it looks like as if we would like to build in a backdoor for the requirement of the EC that the GE Specs have to be 'open' whatever that means exactly.
I do not disagree with the principle but I am not convinced that the CA is the correct place to discuss Terms of Use for the GE Specs. I think we have to discuss those Terms later on anyhow because there are, despite the requirement 'open' other things we have to think about, we do not have thought about yet, e.g. should there be feedback upon the implementations to the GE Spec Authors? Should that feedback be received by all Fi-Ware partners, should it be used by all FI PPP participants? Is a license grant needed because a patent is disclosed? How should the authors be responsible for the GE Specs?
We have discussed none of those questions. But we have to do that, if the GE Specs are published. The wording right now is not helpful with regard to usage terms for GE Specs.
I am sorry, but I disagree with the specific wording below.
Thank you and best regards,
Kathrin
Kathrin Schweppe, LL.M.
Contract Specialist
Global Legal
SAP AG
Dietmar-Hopp-Allee 16
69190 Walldorf, Germany
T +49 6227 7-64369
F +49 6227 78-54177
E kathrin.schweppe at sap.com<blocked::mailto:nadine.heitmann at sap.com>
http://www.sap.com<http://www.sap.com/>
Sitz der Gesellschaft/Registered Office: Walldorf, Germany
Vorstand/SAP Executive Board: Bill McDermot (Sprecher/Co-CEO), Jim Hagemann Snabe (Sprecher/Co-CEO), Werner Brandt, Gerhard Oswald, Vishal Sikka
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats/Chairperson of the SAP Supervisory Board: Hasso Plattner
Registergericht/Commercial Register Mannheim No HRB 350269
Diese e-mail kann Betriebs- oder Geschäftsgeheimnisse, dem Anwaltsgeheimnis unterliegende oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese e-mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielfältigung oder Weitergabe der e-mail ausdrücklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene e-mail. Vielen Dank.
Prepared by a member of SAP Global Legal. This message and any attachments may contain information that is confidential, private or protected by the attorney-client or other privilege. If you have received this email in error, please delete this message without further copying or distribution and promptly notify me. Thank you for your cooperation.
Von: Weikl, Susanne (NSN - DE/Munich) [mailto:susanne.weikl at nsn.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. September 2011 09:55
An: Schweppe, Kathrin; Du Besset Mathilde; robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com; Bettina.Lehmann at telekom.de; fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de; SUZANNE at il.ibm.com
Cc: fiware-legal at lists.fi-ware.eu; thierry.nagellen at orange-ftgroup.com; fiware-legal-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu
Betreff: RE: [Fiware-legal] FI-WARE CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT
Hello Kathrin,
I have the impression that you may be looking at the wrong clause or have a misunderstanding of the clause?
We are discussing the second paragraph of 4.1, not the third paragraph:
(second paragraph: Notwithstanding any conflicting terms in this CA, but subject to Annex 3 and Section 3.4.3.3,the FI-WARE Generic Enabler Specifications will be made publically available (upon publication in accordance with clause 4.4.1) on royalty free terms. For the sake of clarity, Parties signing this CA as well as any other third party, subject to - in case of a third party - additional conditions or agreement where requested by a Party or Parties, may develop and release implementations of the FIWARE Generic Enabler Specifications on a royalty-free basis.
third paragraph: For further sake of clarity, Parties including those Parties that assisted in generating the FI-WARE Generic Enabler Specifications may, but are not obliged to, develop implementations or reference implementations of FIWARE Generic Enabler Specifications and request licensing terms other than open and royalty free for such, e.g. under FRAND (Fair, Reasonable and Non- Discriminatory) terms subject to the provisions of Article 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 below. The Parties may release their implementations or reference implementations as open source or closed source, at their sole discretion.)
The "may" you are referring to below does not provide any flexibility, but is a replacement for "is entitled to". I.e. there is no right to chose additional terms.
Additionally, I have the impression that we agree on the principle that the aim is to allow other terms or additional - is this correc
Best Regards
Susanne
From: ext Schweppe, Kathrin [mailto:kathrin.schweppe at sap.com]
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 2:08 PM
To: Du Besset Mathilde; robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com; Weikl, Susanne (NSN - DE/Munich); Bettina.Lehmann at telekom.de; fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de; SUZANNE at il.ibm.com
Cc: fiware-legal at lists.fi-ware.eu; thierry.nagellen at orange-ftgroup.com; fiware-legal-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu
Subject: AW: [Fiware-legal] FI-WARE CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT
Dear all,
SAP disagrees with the wording proposed by Orange and NSN. I have checked with our Belgian lawyers and they explained to me the following:
While it is possible to conclude a contract in favor of third party beneficiaries, but it is difficult to impose obligations upon a third party beneficiary. If an obligation is put upon them, we need at least an approval of the third party beneficiary. If take the wordings, we encounter several problems: First, we have to determine who the third party beneficiaries are. As this is 'the public', we cannot single out one party and we are not able to ask the entire world for approval. The wording itself is somewhat vague so it is difficult for the Third party beneficiary to determine what obligations he can expect. Therefore, I have doubts if a third party beneficiary will agree to the wording. Further, the wording might give an impression of the possibility of to discriminate certain third parties. This might lead to further problems with Standard Bodies, which expect non-discriminatory rules.
What I see as an huge advantage of the current wording is, that the term 'may' to our understanding allows us a certain flexibility. We can agree upon royalty-terms but we do not have to. We can agree upon other terms or additional terms as well. We can ask the third party directly and we are not bound by the CA to ask for royalty-free + certain conditions. I prefer flexibility towards third parties.
Therefore SAP disagrees with this wording and cannot accept it.
Thank you and best regards,
Kathrin
Kathrin Schweppe, LL.M.
Contract Specialist
Global Legal
SAP AG
Dietmar-Hopp-Allee 16
69190 Walldorf, Germany
T +49 6227 7-64369
F +49 6227 78-54177
E kathrin.schweppe at sap.com<blocked::mailto:nadine.heitmann at sap.com>
http://www.sap.com<http://www.sap.com/>
Sitz der Gesellschaft/Registered Office: Walldorf, Germany
Vorstand/SAP Executive Board: Bill McDermot (Sprecher/Co-CEO), Jim Hagemann Snabe (Sprecher/Co-CEO), Werner Brandt, Gerhard Oswald, Vishal Sikka
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats/Chairperson of the SAP Supervisory Board: Hasso Plattner
Registergericht/Commercial Register Mannheim No HRB 350269
Diese e-mail kann Betriebs- oder Geschäftsgeheimnisse, dem Anwaltsgeheimnis unterliegende oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese e-mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielfältigung oder Weitergabe der e-mail ausdrücklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene e-mail. Vielen Dank.
Prepared by a member of SAP Global Legal. This message and any attachments may contain information that is confidential, private or protected by the attorney-client or other privilege. If you have received this email in error, please delete this message without further copying or distribution and promptly notify me. Thank you for your cooperation.
Von: fiware-legal-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-legal-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Im Auftrag von Du Besset Mathilde
Gesendet: Freitag, 2. September 2011 17:58
An: robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com; susanne.weikl at nsn.com; Bettina.Lehmann at telekom.de; fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de; SUZANNE at il.ibm.com
Cc: fiware-legal at lists.fi-ware.eu; thierry.nagellen at orange-ftgroup.com; fiware-legal-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu
Betreff: Re: [Fiware-legal] FI-WARE CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT
Dear all,
Technicolor supports the proposal made by NSN, as modified by Orange.
With best regards.
Mathilde du Besset
Legal counsel - Intellectual property
[cid:image002.png at 01CC6D8F.9C526C20]
1 rue Jeanne d'Arc
92130 Issy-les-Moulineaux, France
Tel: + 33 (0)1.41.86.51.72
mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com<mailto:mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com>
[cid:image003.jpg at 01CC6D8F.9C526C20]
Help preserve the color of our world - Think before you print.
De : fiware-legal-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-legal-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com
Envoyé : vendredi 2 septembre 2011 12:32
À : susanne.weikl at nsn.com; Bettina.Lehmann at telekom.de; fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de; SUZANNE at il.ibm.com
Cc : thierry.nagellen at orange-ftgroup.com; fiware-legal at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-legal-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu
Objet : Re: [Fiware-legal] FI-WARE CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT
Dear all,
If a majority of parties is Ok with the addition proposed by NSN , we can live with such an addition. In this latter case maybe we can precise as follows ( to avoid any doubt that additional conditions are applicable to third parties only - if my understanding is correct ) :
For the sake of clarity, Parties signing this CA as well as any other third party, subject to - in case of a third party - additional conditions or agreement where requested by a Party_or Parties , may develop and release implementations of the FI-WARE Generic Enabler Specifications on a royalty-free basis.")
The current wording proposed by Telefonica can also be accepted
Best regards
________________________________
De : fiware-legal-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-legal-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Weikl, Susanne (NSN - DE/Munich)
Envoyé : jeudi 1 septembre 2011 09:47
À : Bettina.Lehmann at telekom.de; fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de; SUZANNE at il.ibm.com
Cc : fiware-legal at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-legal-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu
Objet : [Fiware-legal] FI-WARE CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT
Hello,
In order to facilitate the decision making:
We have so far only heard SAP objecting to the proposal - we think that the concern can be overcome with the clarification sent out yesterday.
("For the sake of clarity, Parties signing this CA as well as any other third party, subject to additional conditions or agreement ____where requested by a Party____, may develop and release implementations of the FI-WARE Generic Enabler Specifications on a royalty-free basis.")
All other Parties who responded were either of the opinion, that the addition might not necessarily be necessary or were only concerned about timing.
Is the conclusion correct that the majority could basically live with the addition?
Please speak up, so that we know, whether we have a decision or not and can proceed!
Thanks & Best Regards,
Susanne Weikl
Senior Legal Counsel
St.-Martin-Straße 76
41.4017
D-80240 Munich
Tel: +49 89 5159 36940
Mob: +49 160 9062 7495
Fax: +49 89 5159 44 36940
susanne.weikl at nsn.com
http://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/
Think before you print
Nokia Siemens Networks GmbH & Co. KG
Sitz der Gesellschaft: München / Registered office: Munich
Registergericht: München / Commercial registry: Munich, HRA 88537
WEEE-Reg.-Nr.: DE 52984304
Persönlich haftende Gesellschafterin / General Partner: Nokia Siemens Networks Management GmbH
Geschäftsleitung / Board of Directors: Olaf Horsthemke, Dr. Hermann Rodler
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats / Chairman of supervisory board: Herbert Merz
Sitz der Gesellschaft: München / Registered office: Munich
Registergericht: München / Commercial registry: Munich, HRB 163416
_________________________________________________________________________________
Important Note: This e-mail and any attachment are confidential and may contain trade secrets and may also be legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail and any attachment from your system. If you are not the intended recipient please understand that you must not copy this e-mail or any attachment or disclose the contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation.
________________________________
Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at.
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
________________________________
Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at.
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-legal/attachments/20110907/0561503c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 16885 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-legal/attachments/20110907/0561503c/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4608 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-legal/attachments/20110907/0561503c/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 8759 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-legal/attachments/20110907/0561503c/attachment.jpg>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy