[cabfpub] Clarification of "patent-free guidelines"

[Virginia Fournier]

Hello all,

I’d like to clarify what’s referred to below as “patent-free guidelines,” as there’s apparently been a misunderstanding.

I did not say there could never be patent rights in Guidelines.  I mentioned that one of the goals of the IPR Policy is to have Guidelines that can be implemented on a royalty-free basis.  Also, if the CAB Forum is aware of Guidelines that cannot be implemented on a royalty-free basis due to an Essential Claim, such Guidelines will generally not be approved.  These goals come from Section 2 of the IPR Policy, included below.  
2. Licensing and Disclosure Goals for CAB Forum Guidelines

In order to promote the widest adoption of CAB Forum Guidelines, CAB Forum seeks to issue Guidelines that can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis subject to the conditions of this policy. CAB Forum will ordinarily not approve a Guideline if it is aware that Essential Claims exist which are not available on RF terms. CAB Forum Members are encouraged to bring to the attention of the CAB Forum any known patent or pending patent application of other organizations that might contain Essential Claims. 

Best regards,

Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
 Apple Inc.
☏ 669-227-9595
✉︎ vmf at apple.com

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Ryan Sleevi via Public <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
> Date: November 4, 2016 at 12:17:45 PM PDT
> To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
> Cc: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com <mailto:sleevi at google.com>>
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] question about patent-free guidelines
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 5:03 AM, Gervase Markham via Public <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org>> wrote:
> On 03/11/16 18:20, Dimitris Zacharopoulos wrote:
> >  1. whether it is dictated in the bylaws or the IPR policy that the CA/B
> >     Forum must produce patent-free guidelines (otherwise it is probably
> >     allowed to include some patented solutions, among others with
> >     royalty-free license)
> 
> I've not heard anyone arguing that this is a MUST.
> 
> Without wanting to misrepresent her, I believe this was expressed by Virginia during both the F2F and the subsequent call. However, this may simply have been a misunderstanding of position.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org <mailto:Public at cabforum.org>
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public <https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public>





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20161104/7c52e2ef/attachment-0002.html>