From MemberWiki

This wiki page contains minutes from the general Question and Answer sessions that were open to all members.

2006-09-06 Q-A Session

Attending:

• IBM: Jeff Thompson (lawyer), Jon Ferraiolo, and Vic Leith
• SAP: David Frankel and Duane Hughes (lawyer)
• BEA: Eddie O'Neill and Chris Jolley (no lawyer)
• Openwave: Bill Roy (no lawyer)
• Zoho: Ian Wenig
• OpenLinkSW: Ted Thibodeau
• Adobe: Heather Barrett (lawyer)

Zoho: Have had legal counsel look at it. No obligation to contribute. No big concerns on their side. Straightforward agreement.

SAP/Duane: Policy seems reasonable. Fairly standard. No surprises. Seems reasonable. Expect it will be OK. Some concern about what might happen going forward is alliance grows and expands its activities. (Referring to patent grants within agreement)

Duane: Why is there language about "license upon request"? Jeff answered because one of the reviewers requested this, saying some companies prefer having a document that says that a license has been granted. Duane responded that he liked it.

Zoho: Glad to see all of the language about indemnification. This is the key part of the agreement.

Zoho: What about possibilitiies of private discussions of Companies A and B against C? Jeff answered pointing to antitrust sections and others that talk about members obligated to not present confidential info and how SC needs to ensure that alliance doesn't deviate from antitrust provisions.

BEA: Submitted to legal. Waiting for legal to get back to us.

Openwave: Still in early stages of legal review. See no problems. We will be re-engaging with OpenAjax. Jon mentions that Mobile Ajax is on the agenda for the October meeting.

OpenLinkSW: No comments. Mostly just got started. Should sign soon.

Adobe: Considering agreement internally. Concern about grant being on all specs for entire alliance rather than committtes where you participate. Not sure Adobe will be able to monitor all of the activities. Jeff and Jon explain that OpenAjax has a narrow scope such that the entire alliance is like one W3C committeee. Jeff points out that patents don't apply until approved by SC and SC will define a suitable notification process. Jeff and Jon explain that main technical activity now is OpenAjax Hub, which is not inventive and which has tons of prior art and is obvious.

Zoho: Why have patent language at all. Just complicated the agreement. Jeff explains about today's world and the necessity to have a rigorous framework to inspire customer confidence. Zoho accepts this explanation. Also, explained why patent grants need to be automatic.

Someone: Did some of the IP language come from OSS agreements? Jeff: Yes, some of it was derivative of open source agreements.

Someone: Is OAA a legal entity? Jeff said no, just a contractual agreement like the Liberty Alliance. Legal entities have complications, such as employees. Jon went back to Adobe's concerns and explained that we need to keep the process simple and thus don't want to keep track of who worked in what committees.

SAP: Good job on the agreement.

(at about the 45 minute mark, everyone leaves)

2006-09-11 Q-A Session

Attending:

• IBM: Jeff Thompson (lawyer), Jon Ferraiolo
• ILOG: Erwan Paccard (no lawyer)
• Sun: Jonathan Imer (lawyer), Vivek Nagar

(Erwan said ILOG had no objections and would likely sign soon. After asking about potential conversation, he judged that he did not need to stay on the call.)

Jonathan: Although RF, tries both ways. Convenant not to sue and ability to have an agreement to grant license. Why that tactic?

Jeff: Original draft only had covenant but number of companies wanted ability to have explicit license. Doesn't replace covenant, just supplements it.

Jonathan: Covenants lets inertia do the work. But if someone sends a letter asking for patent grant, you have to take action to respond. Seems most vendors would prefer A or B and not have to support both.

Jeff: Primary aim was how to make implementers the most comfortable. For open source, covenant is available. But if a commercial vendor wants an explicit patent grant, that is also an option. Most standards organizations do it this way.

Jonathan: I understand. You are saying that the thinking is to leave it as is and see how it works.

Jeff: Yes. I don't expect it to generate many requests.

Jonathan: Covered claims section - wording lacks some parallelism. Will send a note to Jeff about the language in this section.

Vivek: (In response to question about whether Sun will sign soon) Have to go back to management. Hoping to get it done soon.

Jonathan: Think will be very quick.