Hi Chris,
On 18/3/2024 5:32 μ.μ., Chris Clements via Servercert-wg wrote:
Intellectual Property (IP) Disclosure:
- While not a Server Certificate Working Group Member, researchers
from Princeton University presented at Face-to-Face 58, provided
academic expertise, and highlighted publicly-available peer-reviewed
research to support Members in drafting this ballot.
- The Princeton University researchers indicate that they have not
filed for any patents relating to their MPIC work and do not plan to
do so in the future.
- Princeton University has indicated that it is unable to agree to the
CA/Browser Forum IPR agreement because it could encumber inventions
invented by researchers not involved in the development of MPIC or
with the CA/B Forum.
- Princeton University has instead provided the attached IPR
statement. Pursuant to the IPR statement, Princeton University has
granted a worldwide royalty free license to the intellectual property
in MPIC developed by the researchers and has made representations
regarding its lack of knowledge of any other Princeton intellectual
property needed to implement MPIC.
- For clarity, Princeton University’s IPR statement is NOT intended to
replace the Forum’s IPR agreement or allow Princeton to participate in
the Forum in any capacity.
- Members seeking legal advice regarding this ballot should consult
their own counsel.
This is the first time the Forum and a Chartered Working Group goes
through a ballot with essential contributions coming from a non-Member.
At the last F2F meeting, we discussed about possibly allowing fewer days
for the IPR review in certain cases, and many Members felt that this
would create problems because legal departments need time to review
these documents. My interpretation is that Organizations that
participate in the Forum are very sensitive when it comes to IP issues.
I would therefore suggest that the discussion period takes *at least 30
days* (similar to the time it takes for the IPR review period to end for
Maintenance Guidelines), so that Members have time to provide
information to their legal departments regarding the commitment by
Princeton from January 11, 2024, and see if there are any objections or
concerns raised. All members will ultimately have to accept the proposed
IPR solution offered by Princeton before the ballot enters its voting
period. I hope this sounds reasonable and fair.
At the same time, we can continue discussing the proposed language that
updates the BRs.
Other Members that are sensitive on this matter can also speak up about
this suggested process so we can proceed with caution and minimize the
IP risks.
Thank you,
Dimitris.
_______________________________________________
Servercert-wg mailing list
Servercert-wg@cabforum.org
https://lists.cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/servercert-wg
