[KI-LC] Heads-up on an interesting question

Salvatore D'Agostino sal at idmachines.com
Wed Oct 2 20:25:59 CDT 2013

Not a lawyer.


Did I say I am not a lawyer?


Seems like a normal outcome for Kantara given its policy and this was
handled exactly right. 


The IPR is one of the things that makes Kantara interesting and seems likely
people have gone down this route before.  I don't think this should change.
The downside is that companies avoid or decline participation.  I guess
individuals can participate on their own though not sure this addresses any
of the issues here.   Same thing for NSTIC/IDESG I believe?

Clearly the right thing to stay clear of any IP and that means even reading
or noting it.


Stay the course IMO.


From: lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org
[mailto:lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Joni Brennan
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 4:54 PM
To: Eve Maler
Cc: LC at kantarainitiative.org Council Kantara
Subject: Re: [KI-LC] Heads-up on an interesting question


Thanks Eve.  Yes I'd like to see if other groups have faced this challenge
or have input to the discussion.  I suggest that we identify actions on an
organizational basis once (versus case-by-case) and possibly create simple
policy guidance - considering UMA and all groups who might come in to this
kind of situation.  LC as the leaders of Kantara Innovation are the natural
place to start.  

Thanks in advance to chairs for their thoughts. 

Best Regards,

Joni Brennan
Kantara Initiative | Executive Director
voice:+1 732-226-4223
email: joni @ kantarainitiative.org

Building Trusted Identity Ecosystems - It takes a village! 
Slides: http://bit.ly/ki-june-2013


On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Eve Maler <eve at xmlgrrl.com> wrote:

A company recently came upon UMA and expressed interest in potentially
implementing it, switching from their self-created access control plumbing
to UMA's open protocol. The company has some patents that may or may not
have anything to do with UMA -- and therein lies an interesting challenge.
The company is uncertain about joining the WG because of the IPR regime of
the group, and I'm reluctant to encourage UMAnitarians to take a look at the
company's IP out of an abundance of caution around becoming "tainted" with
knowledge of IP that UMA might ultimately add in any future design work,
potentially encumbering the spec.

I asked Joni about the appropriateness of seeking the advice of a Kantara
legal expert, and she thought I should bring the question here, potentially
escalating to the Board if we see fit. Can we discuss at the next
opportunity? (Unfortunately, I'm not sure what that is in my case, since
I'll shortly be on the road for nearly two weeks!)

Thanks, folks,


Eve Maler                                  http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
+1 425 345 6756 <tel:%2B1%20425%20345%206756>

LC mailing list
LC at kantarainitiative.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/attachments/20131002/ba91de8f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 6085 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/attachments/20131002/ba91de8f/attachment-0001.bin>

More information about the LC mailing list