Dear Juanjo,
Regarding point #1.. IMO, if we want to make progress faster, it might be
a good idea to distinguish between Use Cases and OIL. IPR for Use Cases
has been discussed many times, including Collaboration Agreement, and it
sounds feasible to reach a decision there (maybe with some facilitation
from EC). However, the discussion on terms and conditions for OIL only
started, and it might be premature at the moment to assume a very specific
approach to IPR. Clearly, it should have some sort of alignment with the
spirit of the terms and conditions for Use Cases -- but there are many
details which yet need to be nailed down and agreed.
Regards,
Alex
====================================================================================================
Alex Glikson
Manager, Cloud Operating System Technologies, IBM Haifa Research Lab
http://w3.haifa.ibm.com/dept/stt/cloud_sys.html |
http://www.research.ibm.com/haifa/dept/stt/cloud_sys.shtml
Email: glikson at il.ibm.com | Phone: +972-4-8281085 | Mobile:
+972-54-6466667 | Fax: +972-4-8296112
From: Juanjo Hierro <jhierro at tid.es>
To: "fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu" <fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu>,
Cc: "Theilmann, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.theilmann at sap.com>,
"fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu" <fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu>,
"fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu" <fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu>,
"fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu" <fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu>
Date: 13/05/2013 09:27 AM
Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: RE: Issue on IPR management of
background associated to background of FI-WARE GEis
Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu
Hi,
Please find below the response by our PO, Arian Zwegers, to my email
describing the issue on IPR management of background associated to FI-WARE
GEis.
Essentially, our PO:
1. asks us to clearly state what is our position regarding IPRs to
background associated to the FI-WARE GEis
2. would go for a solution consisting in a formal letter by Jesús
Villasante o Peter Fatelning (Head and Deputy Head of Unit, respectively)
stating that the fact that contents of B.2.3.4 are refining contents of
clause 41 is considered valid from a legal perspective by the EC
I understand that, regarding point 1, we can clearly state that:
The commitment by FI-WARE partners is to grant royalty-free access to
background and foreground associated to the FI-WARE GEis for the execution
of FI-PPP projects (including FI-WARE), in line with what is stated in the
Collaboration Agreement. Note that this not only applies to partners of
FI-PPP projects but also third party users of the FI-WARE OIL (since
offering FI-WARE GEis royalty-free to them is essential for the execution
of FI-WARE and the FI-PPP program).
Unless we receive any objection by end of this week, in which case we
would have to confirm the position of each partner to send a detailed
report on each partner's position to the EC, I will provide this statement
in a response to the mail of our PO.
Regarding point 2, the solution proposed by our PO it's ok for
Telefónica, but we need to know if anyone objects. Please also express
any objection by the end of this week.
Please ask your legal representatives about the questions above, if you
need to.
Best regards,
-- Juanjo
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:
RE: Issue on IPR management of background associated to background of
FI-WARE GEis
Date:
Thu, 9 May 2013 04:34:04 +0000
From:
<Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu>
To:
<jhierro at tid.es>, <Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu>
CC:
<CNECT-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu>, <jdps at tid.es>, <lgg at tid.es>
Dear Juanjo,
Your explanation of the collaboration agreement is surprising. As you
know, we don't know the contents.
The SAP explanation is a surprise, since it always came across that
- SAP did not want to be obliged to provide background to complementary
beneficiaries, only to beneficiaries. I always thought that that was in
the collaboration agreement, if anything at all.
- (since providing background needs to be done and royalty-free) removing
the paragraph still keeps the perceived conflict between clause 41 (as you
mentioned on Friday, SAP perceives that the clause does not allow any
background to be provided to complementary beneficiaries) and the
collaboration agreement. That argument is not mentioned anymore???
The second point is also still valid in the Telefonica solution.
Perhaps we should start from the beginning. What is it that the FI-WARE
consortium want to say about background to complementary beneficiaries?
Note that we are not interested in Telefonica's or SAP's position, only
the consortium's.
Depending on the answer to the question above, I would favour the last
option. Peter or Jesus could write an email. "Valid from a legal
perspective" can only be tested in a court of law anyway; until then, all
is opinion.
Best regards,
Arian
________________________________________
From: Juanjo Hierro [jhierro at tid.es]
Sent: 07 May 2013 19:24
To: ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT); BERGSTROM Ragnar (CNECT)
Cc: CNECT-ICT-285248; Javier de Pedro Sanchez; LUIS GARCIA GARCIA; jhierro
>> "Juan J. Hierro"
Subject: Issue on IPR management of background associated to background of
FI-WARE GEis
Dear Arian and Ragnar,
Following our conversation last friday, I would like to explain the IPR
management issue we have potentially identified in the current Grant
Agreement which we would like to get solved in amendment 5.
In this mail, I will elaborate on:
1. The issue itself
2. The alternative solutions proposed by some of the partners in
FI-WARE
3. Some thoughts about next steps trying to find how to solve the issue
1. The issue itself
The issue is derived from a contradiction that has been detected by SAP
on different places of the Grant Agreement (the contract).
On one hand, the B.3.2.4 section on IPR included in the FI-WARE DoW
(formally referred as Annex I of the Grant Agreement) states the
following:
[cid:part1.08040204.00010208 at tid.es]
This paragraph was based on what we already stated in our proposal and
was also requested by the EC. It was also aligned with clauses related
to access rights to FI-WARE GE specifications and implementations in the
FI-PPP Collaboration Agreement.
However, special clause 41 in article 7 of the Grant Agreement states
the following which apparently contradicts what was said in section
B.3.2.4 of the DoW:
[cid:part2.04080501.01050601 at tid.es]
Besides this, there is article of the Grant Agreement that elaborates on
what interpretation should prevail in case of conflicts between different
parts of the Grant Agreement:
[cid:part3.07080809.01050802 at tid.es]
That would mean that what was stated in special clause 41 in article 7
would take precedence over what was stated in section B.3.2.4 of the DoW.
It seems like it would be worth fixing this contradictions in an
amendment of the DoW.
2. The alternative solutions proposed by SAP and Telefonica
2.1 Solution proposed by SAP
The solution proposed by SAP is simple: drop the conflicting paragraph
on section B.3.2.4. Consequently, just relying on what the Grant
Agreement states, users of FI-WARE in the context of the FI-PPP could be
charged for the background associated to a FI-WARE GE implementation.
However, since the Collaboration Agreement states that access to
background associated to FI-WARE GE implementations has to be granted
royalty-free, this 'ability' to charge for background associated to a
FI-WARE GE implementation would not be executable in practice unless
breaking the Collaboration Agreement.
Implementing the proposal, the Grant Agreement would become consistent,
and the goal to keep access to both background and foreground granted
royalty-free would be kept preserved through the Collaboration Agreement.
2.2. Solution proposed by Telefonica
Telefonica's proposal was also simple:
* Fix special clause 41 so that it reads as follows (changes marked in
red):
Complementary beneficiaries enjoy the rights and bear the obligations of
beneficiaries with
regard to Articles II.32, II.33 and II.34 of Annex II {Access Rights}.
However, for
complementary beneficiaries, these rights and obligations are limited to
foreground and background associated only to FI-WARE GE implementations
developed in FI-WARE the project. Therefore, they do not extend to
background that is not part of FI-WARE GE implementations or required for
them to run. Complementary beneficiaries are not members of the consortium
for
the purpose of this grant agreement
* Clarify paragraph in section B.3.2.4 of the DoW for the avoidance of
doubt:
Access Rights to Foreground and Background associated to FI-WARE GE
implementations needed for the execution of the FI-PPP projects and users
who carry out experiments in the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab as long as
the FI-WARE project lasts, shall be
deemed granted on a Royalty-Free basis. Other than in exceptional
circumstances and only for
Background specifically identified, no costs shall be charged for granting
such Access Rights. The FI-WARE
beneficiaries will not charge any such costs to the project.
The whole idea would be to fix the Grant Agreement as to reflect what
was the spirit of the program since the beginning, without the need to
rely on the Collaboration Agreement. Note that the EC is party in the
Grant Agreement but not the Collaboration Agreement, therefore this
proposal allows the EC to act against any partner that doesn't grant
royalty-free access to background and foreground associated to a FI-WARE
GE implementation for the execution of projects in the FI-PPP. With
SAP's proposal, it is up to partners signing the Collaboration Agreement
to decide whether to sue or not any partner who decides to charge for
background associated to a FI-WARE GE implementation.
Furthermore, the proposal intends to fix any uncertainties regarding
usage of background of FI-WARE GE implementations by third parties users
of the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab (could be a party running an experiment
on the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab be considered as a partner of the
FI-PPP ? We believe it is not so clear, so better that we make it clear
that access to background and foreground associated to FI-WARE GE
implementations will be granted royalty-free to third parties users of the
FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab
3. Some thoughts about next steps trying to find how to solve the issue
It would be important that this issue be solved in amendment 5.
Obviously, one potential alternative would be to go for one of the two
proposals described in the previous point. At the current moment, the
solution proposed by Telefonica was endorsed by more partners within
FI-WARE (up to 14 partners). The proposal made by SAP was supported by
two partners (one being SAP). The rest of partners seem to abstain.
Another possibility would be that the EC makes a formal statement that
the special clause 41 doesn't get into contradiction with the mentioned
paragraph in section B.3.2.4 of the DoW so the DoW in practice is refining
what the clause 41 was stating in a first approach. Note that such
statement to be provided by the EC should be formal and valid from a legal
perspective.
Looking forward your response.
Best regards,
-- Juanjo Hierro
-------------
Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital
website: www.tid.es<http://www.tid.es>
email: jhierro at tid.es<mailto:jhierro at tid.es>
twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro
FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Coordinator
and Chief Architect
You can follow FI-WARE at:
website: http://www.fi-ware.eu
facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242
twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware
linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932
________________________________
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[attachment "ATT00001.png"
deleted by Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM] [attachment "ATT00002.png" deleted by
Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM] [attachment "ATT00003.png" deleted by Alex
Glikson/Haifa/IBM] _______________________________________________
Fiware-pcc mailing list
Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu
https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-wpa/attachments/20130513/d7dd804d/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy