Dear Lindsay,
Just to make sure ... when will we know definitively when the ISG
has been approved?
I understand the approval has came with the old language regarding
management of IPR policies ... is it correct or did we finally dropped
out the "offensive" sentence?
Cheers,
-- Juanjo
On 19/12/2016 10:48, Lindsay Frost wrote:
> Dear all
> thank you for the extra inputs and discussions with some of you over
> the weekend.
>
> Hermann emailed me that the ToR is just approved now and he is
> preparing the official documents!
>
> From our past experience we should carefully wait and check them.
>
> I ask the colleagues in Orange if they could suggest to their Board
> member that IF there is reaction to the official news on the Board
> mailing list THEN Nick might express cautious support of this positive
> start to the work? BUT if nobody else comments then it is probably
> best to keep quiet also.
>
> I will make the same suggestion to the NEC member on the Board.
>
> More official news soon I hope.
> Lindsay
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 18.12.2016, at 22:31, "serge.raes at orange.com
> <mailto:serge.raes at orange.com>" <serge.raes at orange.com
> <mailto:serge.raes at orange.com>> wrote:
>
>> Dear Juanjo and Colleagues,
>>
>> The procedures exist in the IPR Policy, Guidelines and Forms. I
>> invite you all to consult with your in-house IP Counsel to explain
>> these texts and the voluntary nature of the Patent licensing
>> commitment. So, that condition is already met !
>>
>> By the way, nobody can be certain of anything when working on
>> technical specifications subject to patent rights (not to mention
>> copyrights) and no SDO can make sure that such technical work may not
>> be subject to 3^rd party rights exposure. That being said, let me
>> repeat that, as far as I understand from the ISG CIM scope of work, I
>> see no possibility to protect Data Models by patents and the basic
>> operations on such data is already well established as prior art many
>> decades ago.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Serge RAES,
>>
>> ETSI IPR Special Committee Vice-Chair
>>
>> *De :*Juanjo Hierro [mailto:juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com]
>> *Envoyé :* dimanche 18 décembre 2016 22:14
>> *À :* Lindsay Frost <Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu
>> <mailto:Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu>>; Mulligan, Catherine E A
>> <c.mulligan at imperial.ac.uk <mailto:c.mulligan at imperial.ac.uk>>; Ernoe
>> Kovacs <Ernoe.Kovacs at neclab.eu <mailto:Ernoe.Kovacs at neclab.eu>>; JOSE
>> MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA <josemanuel.canterafonseca at telefonica.com
>> <mailto:josemanuel.canterafonseca at telefonica.com>>; PRIVAT Gilles
>> IMT/OLPS <gilles.privat at orange.com
>> <mailto:gilles.privat at orange.com>>; Franck Le Gall
>> <franck.le-gall at eglobalmark.com
>> <mailto:franck.le-gall at eglobalmark.com>>; RAES Serge IMT/OLPS
>> <serge.raes at orange.com <mailto:serge.raes at orange.com>>
>> *Cc :* fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org
>> <mailto:fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org>
>> *Objet :* Re: Next step? (a) wait (b) delete sentences (c) attack -->
>> agree on email for Monday?
>>
>> Dear Lindsay and all,
>>
>> I'm fine dropping the conflicting sentences IF as proposed convenor
>> (and later I guess chairman of the ISG) you commit to establish a
>> procedure which will allow members and participants to the ISG to
>> declare that their contributions are going to be royalty-free (on a
>> voluntary basis). This way we will know in advance what are the
>> contributions we may consider safe, not only to be included in specs
>> but also to implement as open source, or we have to handle carefully
>> (probably not allowing the incorporation in the spec until certain
>> time is completed during which they have to declare whether they had
>> essential patents involved).
>>
>> Linday: Regarding your statement in your PS "The CIM topic, and the
>> NGSI work, has been ongoing for many years and it is highly likely
>> that a number of patents on general ideas exist pre-dating even the
>> FIWARE work. ", let me share with you that one of the strongest
>> points in relying the work on the CIM API on OMA NGSI is precisely
>> that the OMA NGSI specs are free of claims on essential patents (I
>> personally review this point looking at the declaration of essential
>> patents published by OMA). That is, btw, one of the rationales
>> behind keeping OMA NGSI (and FIWARE NGSI as restful binding) as
>> starting point of our work. Going in other direction may be indeed
>> a risky exercise.
>>
>> I know that a rather relevant initiative in Europe (I can no
>> disclose more information, sorry ... but is not under the FIWARE
>> umbrella) is now in serious problem because they has been threaten by
>> a company that argues they have essential patents on the technical
>> vision advocated by the initiative ... I would argue that the vision
>> is not so rocket-science and therefore essential patents cannot be
>> claimed, but the mere fact that they may have to solve that in courts
>> will for sure be rather cumbersome. We hope that we learn from
>> those lessons and stick to the plan of relying on OMA NGSI (with all
>> relevant enhancements provided they are free of patents).
>>
>> BTW, the fact that OMA NGSI (and therefore FIWARE NGSI as restful
>> binding) are free of these problems should be something that should
>> be (and I guess/hope is) welcomed by OASC and relevant initatives in
>> other smart domains (agrifood, industry).
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> -- Juanjo
>>
>> On 18/12/2016 15:53, Lindsay Frost wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> unfortunately there is a combination of matters of principle, of
>> tactics in achieving our goals, and of legal or bureaucratic
>> constraints. In short emails it is very difficult for any of us
>> to convince each other because of different background knowledge
>> (and different opinions of principles).
>>
>> Although I am very angry at the "non-transparent" way that ETSI
>> Board is handling the ToR, I truly believe that the deletion of
>> the "contentious" sentences will not affect our intended manner
>> of working.
>>
>> *Therefore, I really urge everyone to consider accepting the
>> proposed deletion of sentences, without applying new ones which
>> try to achieve the same message by other wording. We tried that
>> latter tactic already, and achieved wording completely congruent
>> to ETSI policy, but still it only resulted in delays. I apologise
>> for that.*
>>
>> Let us agree to start the work now, by accepting the edits ...
>> the result will be a Specification (or even sooner, a Draft
>> Specification) which any and all of us can try to get (pieces of)
>> contributed into software projects which have different rules on
>> IPR than ETSI. ETSI ISG will simply offer us a forum for getting
>> results faster ... once we start.
>>
>> best regards
>>
>> Lindsay
>>
>> PS:
>>
>> In reply to Juanjo's comments, regarding avoiding what are
>> sometimes called "submarine patents", we should work together in
>> the next period to handle the total situation. The CIM topic, and
>> the NGSI work, has been ongoing for many years and it is highly
>> likely that a number of patents on general ideas exist pre-dating
>> even the FIWARE work. Companies can be prepared to wait a long
>> time before claiming license fees because the initial "cost" of
>> creating the patent is a "sunk cost". Nothing we write in the
>> ToR can prevent such "old" patents impacting our work, or indeed
>> "new" patents popping up. Our job in the ISG CIM can include
>> however creating an ecosystem which is prepared to react quickly,
>> publicly and jointly so as to avoid being held to ransom. The
>> more cooperation partners we draw in, the easier that will be.
>> The sooner we start, the better we know what needs to be
>> considered. External organisations can also be called in to do
>> their part in lobbying, once there is an ISG Spec to "point to".
>>
>> ________________________________________
>>
>> Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng.
>>
>> frost at neclab.eu <mailto:frost at neclab.eu> Mobile +49.163.275.1734
>>
>> NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurfürsten-Anlage 36,
>>
>> D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany.
>>
>> Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151
>>
>> Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road,
>>
>> London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014
>>
>> *From:*Juanjo Hierro [mailto:juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com]
>> *Sent:* Sonntag, 18. Dezember 2016 14:21
>> *To:* Mulligan, Catherine E A; Lindsay Frost; Ernoe Kovacs; JOSE
>> MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA; PRIVAT Gilles IMT/OLPS; Franck Le Gall;
>> RAES Serge IMT/OLPS (serge.raes at orange.com
>> <mailto:serge.raes at orange.com>)
>> *Cc:* fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org
>> <mailto:fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: Next step? (a) wait (b) delete sentences (c)
>> attack --> agree on email for Monday?
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> BTW and for your knowledge and the knowledge of the rest of the
>> team.
>>
>> One of the reasons why the ETSI team (and Enrico Scarrone)
>> suddenly changed their position were because precisely the EC
>> intervened. The EC was well aware of our discussions and the
>> point at which they were blocked (due to the argument on
>> overlapping with Smart M2M). You may guess how they got
>> noticed. And, as far as I know, it was after a long
>> conversation between Emilio and the ETSI people and Enrico when
>> things changed.
>>
>> We may live thinking that the call on November 22 went so
>> smooth because we made a rather good argument of our points
>> during the call. But I tell you that there were things that
>> happened before and behind the scenes. The intervention of the
>> EC was crucial, stimulated by some of us.
>>
>> Given said that and what I have said in previous message I
>> repeat that I'm happy to drop the "offending" statements provided
>> that we introduce a mechanism by which organizations involved in
>> the work of the ISG can declare that their contributions will not
>> lead to claim of any essential patents.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> -- Juanjo
>>
>> On 18/12/2016 10:32, Mulligan, Catherine E A wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> While I appreciate your point I strongly believe calling on
>> the EC to give input to an ETSI discussion is like using a
>> canon to solve a fight in a kindergarten.
>>
>> Also, it will set the wrong tone for our future work in ETSI
>> - we will appear to be spoilt children who can't solve our
>> own problems.
>>
>> We're not and those two sentences make no difference to our
>> cause.
>>
>> We need to know when to fold 'em.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Cathy
>>
>> Skaffa Outlook för Android <https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 10:28 AM +0100, "Juanjo Hierro"
>> <juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com
>> <mailto:juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I won't make any move without considering feedback from the
>> EC. I believe they should be aware about the position of
>> the ETSI Board and understand the risk of initiating a work
>> where companies could introduce submarine patents.
>>
>> Our text doesn't go against the ETSI IPR policies, that is
>> the fact. It simply introduces more warranties about what
>> the ETSI intends to warrant which is that people know when
>> there may be contributions leading to patent claims in the
>> future.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> -- Juanjo
>>
>> On 17/12/2016 22:47, Mulligan, Catherine E A wrote:
>>
>> Delete sentences.
>>
>> While we can have a go at the board right now we need to
>> look like good community members.
>>
>> ETSI has IPR rules. They won't want to bend those because
>> it sets a precedent.
>>
>> Best,
>> Cathy
>>
>> Skaffa Outlook för Android <https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 10:45 PM +0100, "Lindsay Frost"
>> <Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu
>> <mailto:Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> No news, therefore I need to ask your views on the next step.
>>
>> (a)Wait
>>
>> Not an option really, because of a huge gap over
>> Christmas. We need to react during Monday.
>>
>> (b)Delete sentences
>>
>> It seems clear that approval would be provided if we
>> delete some more "contentious" sentence(s).
>>
>> The "worst" one seems to be the one I mark red below. The
>> blue one is also not much loved.
>>
>> Neither sentence has any legally binding consequences;
>> they simply make clear that we intend to
>>
>> be fast, transparent and avoid "submarine patents". My
>> proposal is to delete BOTH sentences
>>
>> and get on with the job of doing CIM, as fast and
>> transparently as possible. Deleting both is maybe
>>
>> not necessary, but who knows?, and I feel no inclination
>> just now to write that ETSI facilitates "agile
>>
>> and efficient".
>>
>> What are your views on this? At the end of the email is a
>> draft email for review.
>>
>> Group Specifications developed within the ETSI ISG CIM
>> will be public and subject to ETSI IPR policy, especially
>> concerning timely declaration. In order to facilitate
>> agile and efficient standardization, to maximize the
>> acceptance of the specifications produced, and to ease
>> collaboration with open source initiatives supporting the
>> specifications, ETSI ISG CIM Members and Participants
>> will be encouraged during the specification process,
>> including at the time of making a contribution, to
>> declare if they believe that an ETSI IPR Declaration is
>> necessary (in particular Clauses 4.1 and 6.1 but also to
>> copyrights as addressed under Clause 9.2.3). Members and
>> Participants are reminded that acting contrary to ETSI
>> IPR policy and/or delaying timely declaration of IPR can
>> only delay the successful completion of the
>> specification(s), undermining a critical success factor
>> for the ISG.
>>
>> (c)Attack
>>
>> I believe ETSI Board could be criticized by the EC for
>> their attacks on our text above, and NEC has already
>>
>> pointed this out obliquely in a Board email citing a
>> December report on SEP from the EC which finds ETSI slow
>>
>> in getting IPR Declarations (compared to e.g. ISO).
>> However apparently that observation just heated the
>>
>> discussion on Friday. For sure if we make formal
>> complaints AT THIS TIME it will move the whole ToR into
>>
>> a delay "until the issues are all resolved". Therefore my
>> recommendation is to "delete the sentences, under
>>
>> protest" and consider at a later time if it is worth
>> trying to re-educate the ETSI Board.
>>
>> Please express your views.
>>
>> DRAFT EMAIL
>>
>> TO: ETSI Director General
>>
>> Dear Luis Jorge Romero,
>>
>> the founding members of the intended ISG CIM have heard
>> that there is significant debate by the
>>
>> ETSI Board concerning our emphasis on ETSI principles of
>> transparency and timely declaration of
>>
>> IPR, in the ToR paragraph below. If it will result in
>> avoidance of further delays in the important
>>
>> standardisation work, then we offer to completely retract
>> those sentences, as shown (and as attached).
>>
>> Group Specifications developed within the ETSI ISG CIM
>> will be public and subject to ETSI IPR policy, especially
>> concerning timely declaration. In order to facilitate
>> agile and efficient standardization, to maximize the
>> acceptance of the specifications produced, and to ease
>> collaboration with open source initiatives supporting the
>> specifications, ETSI ISG CIM Members and Participants
>> will be encouraged during the specification process,
>> including at the time of making a contribution, to
>> declare if they believe that an ETSI IPR Declaration is
>> necessary (in particular Clauses 4.1 and 6.1 but also to
>> copyrights as addressed under Clause 9.2.3). Members and
>> Participants are reminded that acting contrary to ETSI
>> IPR policy and/or delaying timely declaration of IPR can
>> only delay the successful completion of the
>> specification(s), undermining a critical success factor
>> for the ISG.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Lindsay Frost (NEC, proposed Convenor)
>>
>> ________________________________________
>>
>> Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng.
>>
>> frost at neclab.eu <mailto:frost at neclab.eu> Mobile
>> +49.163.275.1734
>>
>> NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurfürsten-Anlage 36,
>>
>> D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany.
>>
>> Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151
>>
>> Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road,
>>
>> London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014
>>
>> *From:*fiware-oasc-etsi-bounces at lists.fiware.org
>> <mailto:fiware-oasc-etsi-bounces at lists.fiware.org>
>> [mailto:fiware-oasc-etsi-bounces at lists.fiware.org] *On
>> Behalf Of *Lindsay Frost
>> *Sent:* Freitag, 16. Dezember 2016 10:41
>> *To:* Juanjo Hierro (juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com
>> <mailto:juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com>); Mulligan,
>> Catherine E A; Ernoe Kovacs; JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA;
>> PRIVAT Gilles IMT/OLPS; Franck Le Gall; RAES Serge
>> IMT/OLPS (serge.raes at orange.com
>> <mailto:serge.raes at orange.com>)
>> *Cc:* Fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org
>> <mailto:Fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org>
>> *Subject:* [Fiware-oasc-etsi] fyi: ETSI Board consulting
>> period has been extended to close of business today
>> 16.12.2016
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I learned from NEC representative on the ETSI Board that
>> the consultation
>>
>> period has been extended to close of business today. I
>> have asked him to
>>
>> consider if he can find some supporting words which will
>> encourage a
>>
>> positive conclusion rather than enflame the debate again.
>> Apparently the
>>
>> issue of IPR is extremely sensitive and several ETSI
>> members have
>>
>> positions which - if touched in any way - lead to long
>> and emotional debate.
>>
>> I believe this does not reflect well on the good
>> reputation of ETSI Board.
>>
>> best wishes
>>
>> Lindsay
>>
>> ________________________________________
>>
>> Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng.
>>
>> frost at neclab.eu <mailto:frost at neclab.eu> Mobile
>> +49.163.275.1734
>>
>> NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurfürsten-Anlage 36,
>>
>> D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany.
>>
>> Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151
>>
>> Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road,
>>
>> London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>
>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>> Thank you.
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy