[KI-LC] Heads-up on an interesting question
eve at xmlgrrl.com
Fri Oct 4 10:52:57 CDT 2013
I believe (IANAL) that you're right that individual participation by people associated with corporate IP doesn't change the risk calculus. Of course, while I'd love for this company to engage at the Kantara table, it's their choice. My main question was around confirming the unfortunate reality of not being able to fully engage in substantive conversations about their technology. In the absence of any advice to the contrary, I'll keep assuming that...
On 2 Oct 2013, at 6:25 PM, Salvatore D'Agostino <sal at idmachines.com> wrote:
> 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 http://www.twitter.com/xmlgrrl
> LC mailing list
> LC at kantarainitiative.org
Eve Maler http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
+1 425 345 6756 http://www.twitter.com/xmlgrrl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the LC