[cabfpub] Ballot process ordering (2)

[Ryan Sleevi]

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 3:42 AM, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org> wrote:

> On 02/11/16 18:26, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> > Unfortunately, yes, this is, I believe, a correct conclusion.
> >
> > Nothing in our IPR policy states that the Forum Guidelines MUST not
> > include any Essential Claims; merely, that the goal is to avoid that
> > situation. Much of our IPR policy is structured in a way as to set
> > expectations about exclusions, but does not mandate there be none. This
> > is supported by the enumerated set of options in 7.3.2 and in words like
> > "seeks", "ordinarily", and "encouraged" within Section 2.
>
> If the Forum then passed a ballot to remove the provisions in question
> (because they didn't know how long the PAG would take and didn't want
> people to be required to implement encumbered technology in the mean
> time) then what happens to the PAG? Does it disappear in a puff of logic
> because the thing it's examining is no longer in the document?
>

I'm not sure why you think it would, but I agree that it's an element for
clarity.

Presumably, the PAG itself would decide what to do - at which point, it
might say "No action required - unless you try to pass this ballot again" -
or it might try to find a way to design around the Essential Claim to use
as a new Ballot. Which would then have a new Exclusion Notice (presumably,
since patent holders are inclined to assume no one can design around their
mechanism, whether or not that's technically true), convene a new PAG, in
which case, the new PAG might decide the previous PAG wasn't clever enough
in designing around it, or the new PAG might say "Nothing to see here, move
along"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20161103/aa6bf596/attachment-0003.html>