Re: [uf-discuss] Legal implications of using Microformats

[Manu Sporny]

M. Jackson Wilkinson wrote:
> If a patent were granted, then the holders could approach users of the
> now-patented "process" and hold them accountable for royalties and
> licensing fees.  All of a sudden, anyone from Microsoft to your small
> business can be threatened with, at minimum, a long legal battle.

Exactly the point - the Microformats community is not doing enough to
protect the implementors of their technology.

> This fear can be soothed fairly simply by releasing all work on the wiki
> into the public domain, or something of the sort.  All wiki pages could
> be under the LGPL, the GDL, or some other open licenses if not in the
> public domain.  There are several options here.

Right on the money, again.

> The challenge now is that every editor of the wiki would, I believe,
> need to either approve of the change in license, or their work would
> need to be stripped out of the wiki.  This kind of process has happened
> several times in open source software projects.  The microformats wiki
> may be sufficiently young as to make this somewhat possible, but it
> would certainly involve significant effort.
>
> It's one of those things that really needs to be handled right at the
> beginning.

Another brilliant statement! Deal with the problem now while it is
manageable - or later, when there are going to be multi-million dollar
lawsuits being bandied about. The Microformats community WILL be blamed
for not performing proper due diligence before placing their standards
online.

> Again, this is all just based on my personal experience and research,
> and is not legal advice, but may be useful as a way of understanding why
> some may be concerned.

The reason this issue was raised was because we have authored and filed
several patents and know what we are talking about regarding the dangers
of submarine patents. If you want an "official" letter from a legal firm
specializing in copyright and patent law, stating how tenuous the
Microformats community's copyright and patent policy is - we could
arrange that. However, it is going to cost us a sizeable chunk of change
and we wanted to make sure that the community was listening before we
went out and arranged to have that happen.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny
President/CEO, Digital Bazaar, Inc.
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] Legal implications of using Microformats

[Andy Mabbett]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Scott
Reynen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

>On May 1, 2007, at 3:10 PM, Scott Reynen wrote:
>
>> Pretty much everything about this community is focused on solving
>>problems only after they are made incredibly obvious, so it doesn't
>>surprise me at all that something like this isn't yet fixed.
>
>On re-reading that, I realized one might infer that I think it's a  bad
>thing this community is focused on solving incredibly obvious
>problems.  I actually think it's generally a good thing.

Solving incredibly obvious problems is indeed a good thing. Not solving
problems /until/ they become *incredibly* obvious is a bad thing.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
*  Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards:  
*  Free Our Data:  
*  Are you using Microformats, yet:  ?
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: Fwd: [uf-discuss] Legal implications of using Microformats

[M. Jackson Wilkinson]

Paul Wilkins wrote:

Brian Suda wrote:

I keep going back to how companies like Microsoft and Yahoo have
decided to use microformats, if they thought there were problems, they
would have been the first to complain.

Lets talk about what/if any changes could be made to make things more
clear. I'm certainly up for clarifying things, as an author, i'm not
trying to hide or do something sneaky.


What kind of copyright or licensing things are involved with microformats?

I would have thought that there were none, as microformats are just an 
advisory on how to markup text.


I compare it with, "Hey, here's an idea. Use the address tag so people 
know who to get in touch with to edit the page."


Does the way that geo tags are put together,
. . .
require any form of copyright or license? I would hope not.



NB: I am not a lawyer.  I was an intellectual property paralegal in DC 
for a time, and this is based on my experience with that.  This is not 
legal advice, yadda yadda ;)


One might not think that these things would be subject to copyright (or, 
more dangerously, as a potential submarine patent threat), but specific 
strings of tags and such may be considered as unique as specific strings 
of words can be in verse and prose and advertising.  I don't know the 
current caselaw in this area, but I would be surprised if there is much 
precedent to assuage fears that copyright could be claimed on pieces of 
microformats.


And in the US, absence of a copyright notice assumes some copyright 
protections.  You have to explicitly release your rights if you wish to 
do so.


More dangerous is the patent side, which is much more friendly to 
algorithms, processes, and the like.  These could ostensibly be 
considered such things, and get past a patent examiner and be granted a 
patent.


If a patent were granted, then the holders could approach users of the 
now-patented "process" and hold them accountable for royalties and 
licensing fees.  All of a sudden, anyone from Microsoft to your small 
business can be threatened with, at minimum, a long legal battle.


This fear can be soothed fairly simply by releasing all work on the wiki 
into the public domain, or something of the sort.  All wiki pages could 
be under the LGPL, the GDL, or some other open licenses if not in the 
public domain.  There are several options here.


The challenge now is that every editor of the wiki would, I believe, 
need to either approve of the change in license, or their work would 
need to be stripped out of the wiki.  This kind of process has happened 
several times in open source software projects.  The microformats wiki 
may be sufficiently young as to make this somewhat possible, but it 
would certainly involve significant effort.


It's one of those things that really needs to be handled right at the 
beginning.


Again, this is all just based on my personal experience and research, 
and is not legal advice, but may be useful as a way of understanding why 
some may be concerned.


Best,
Jackson

--
M. Jackson Wilkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://jounce.net | mobile: 207.841.9103
Grassroots Enterprise | http://grassroots.com
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: Fwd: [uf-discuss] Legal implications of using Microformats

[Stephanie Hobson]

Brian Suda wrote:

What kind of copyright or licensing things are involved with microformats?

I would have thought that there were none, as microformats are just an
advisory on how to markup text.



My thoughts exactly.

Are Microformats not just semantic CSS and HTML?  I have trouble
believing that could be patented at all (not that I know anything
about patents).

The controversy around Ajax might be a useful comparison for this.
Does anyone know the outcomes of attempts to patent it?

-Stephanie.
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] Legal implications of using Microformats

[Scott Reynen]

On May 1, 2007, at 3:10 PM, Scott Reynen wrote:

Pretty much everything about this community is focused on solving  
problems only after they are made incredibly obvious, so it doesn't  
surprise me at all that something like this isn't yet fixed.


On re-reading that, I realized one might infer that I think it's a  
bad thing this community is focused on solving incredibly obvious  
problems.  I actually think it's generally a good thing.


Peace,
Scott

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] Legal implications of using Microformats

[Scott Reynen]

On May 1, 2007, at 1:57 PM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:

It's telling that the "Project:Copyrights" link is to a page which  
has yet to be created.


Yeah, that's pretty embarrassing. Can anyone comment on whether the  
edit blurb is inaccurate, or someone just forgot to create the  
Copyright?


Considering the 14,000 Google results for that phrase [1], I suspect  
it's boilerplate from somewhere (perhaps the default pages in  
MediaWiki), and no one cared enough to change it.  Pretty much  
everything about this community is focused on solving problems only  
after they are made incredibly obvious, so it doesn't surprise me at  
all that something like this isn't yet fixed.


[1] http://www.google.com/search?q=%22You%20are%20also%20promising% 
20us%20that%20you%20wrote%20this%20yourself,%20or%20%20copied%20it% 
20from%20a%20public%20domain%20or%20similar%20free%20resource%22


--
Scott Reynen
Web Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
515.710.2725


___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: Fwd: [uf-discuss] Legal implications of using Microformats

[Paul Wilkins]

Brian Suda wrote:

I keep going back to how companies like Microsoft and Yahoo have
decided to use microformats, if they thought there were problems, they
would have been the first to complain.

Lets talk about what/if any changes could be made to make things more
clear. I'm certainly up for clarifying things, as an author, i'm not
trying to hide or do something sneaky.


What kind of copyright or licensing things are involved with microformats?

I would have thought that there were none, as microformats are just an 
advisory on how to markup text.


I compare it with, "Hey, here's an idea. Use the address tag so people 
know who to get in touch with to edit the page."


Does the way that geo tags are put together,
. . .
require any form of copyright or license? I would hope not.

--
Paul Wilkins
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] Legal implications of using Microformats

[Dr. Ernie Prabhakar]

Hi all,

On May 1, 2007, at 11:29 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:

It's telling that the "Project:Copyrights" link is to a page which  
has yet to be created.


Yeah, that's pretty embarrassing. Can anyone comment on whether the  
edit blurb is inaccurate, or someone just forgot to create the  
Copyright?


-- Ernie P.

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: Fwd: [uf-discuss] Legal implications of using Microformats

[Andy Mabbett]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe Andrieu
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

>Having the IP in an ambiguous state is a mess.

Each editing screen on the 'wiki' has, below the edit box:

Please note that all contributions to Microformats may be
edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you don't
want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it
here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or
copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
Project:Copyrights for details).

It's telling that the "Project:Copyrights" link is to a page which has
yet to be created.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
*  Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards:  
*  Free Our Data:  
*  Are you using Microformats, yet:  ?
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: Fwd: [uf-discuss] Legal implications of using Microformats

[Brian Suda]

On 5/1/07, Guy Fraser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Joe Andrieu wrote:
> My apologies to those who may be earnestly trying to come up with a viable 
solutions.  If you are out there, please give us a report
> on where things stand.
>

Our company has decided to avoid microformats.org like the plague for
now as we feel something fishy is going on. The
licensing/patenting/copyright/ownership issues are as blatant as the
attempts to brush discussions about them under the carpet. This thread
on the list would be an ideal place for such issues to be discussed and
cleared up, but as usual - silence. One has no choice but to assume the
worst. We also note that the requirement for all submissions to be fully
researched is a common requirement for patent application.


--- i'm sorry you feel that way. Sometimes threads don't get much of a
discussion because:1) people don't have any opinion
2) they are not lawyers
3) they don't have an issue with the topic
4) the signal-to-noise prevents people from reading all messages
5) we are all volunteers and can't reply right away.

As one of the authors of the hCard and hCalendar specs, i personally
have no intention of doing anything sneaky or under-handed. I'm sorry
you feel that you need to "avoid microformats like the plague" they
are one of the simplest things to add and back-out if there are
issues.

I would always assume the best, and if things get bad, then we as a
community can take-up these issues.

Rather than taking the negative approach, how about we take this
thread and talk about constructive criticisms to make things better.
I'm not a lawyer (nor do i play one on TV), so i can't give you the
exact advice or suggestions about what you want, but i'm sure someone
in the community can further explain some of the hang-ups. I know some
are on the wiki already, but like i said - it is not my field of
expertise.

I keep going back to how companies like Microsoft and Yahoo have
decided to use microformats, if they thought there were problems, they
would have been the first to complain.

Lets talk about what/if any changes could be made to make things more
clear. I'm certainly up for clarifying things, as an author, i'm not
trying to hide or do something sneaky.

-brian

--
brian suda
http://suda.co.uk
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: Fwd: [uf-discuss] Legal implications of using Microformats

[Guy Fraser]

Joe Andrieu wrote:

My apologies to those who may be earnestly trying to come up with a viable 
solutions.  If you are out there, please give us a report
on where things stand.
  


Our company has decided to avoid microformats.org like the plague for 
now as we feel something fishy is going on. The 
licensing/patenting/copyright/ownership issues are as blatant as the 
attempts to brush discussions about them under the carpet. This thread 
on the list would be an ideal place for such issues to be discussed and 
cleared up, but as usual - silence. One has no choice but to assume the 
worst. We also note that the requirement for all submissions to be fully 
researched is a common requirement for patent application.


Guy
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

RE: Fwd: [uf-discuss] Legal implications of using Microformats

[Joe Andrieu]

Friday, April 27, 2007 9:23 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> Brian Suda wrote:
> > --- if you can give-us any other information, who exactly 
> the company 
> > is, etc and any other information from the legal team we 
> can attempt 
> > to work around these problems or debunk the FUD.
> 
[snip]

> > For those of you that don't know where this discussion 
> > started - it was started by Guy Fraser on microformats-new:
> > 
> > http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-April/000241.html

> The concern is that there is no standard copyright or patent statement or 
> policy that applies to the entire
> Microformats website. Specifically the examples, formats, brainstorming, 
> proposal, draft and specification
> pages have a mix of copyright statements (some not at all). This can cause 
> problems if an individual authors
> a Microformat without releasing copyright or patent claims.

> Microformats can stick around in the "draft" process for a long time. Often 
> they have a statement of 
> intent" to release it under a certain copyright/royalty-free licensing model. 
> "Intent to provide under no 
> restrictions" is very different from "provide under no restrictions".

[snip]

I share Manu's concern and have had minimal luck trying to get traction on this 
topic on the open-issues section of the wiki and in
my conversations with Rohit and others.

Despite the terminology, Brian, it isn't simply a matter of FUD. It's a matter 
of the actual legal rights and licenses.  The
disconnect between the copyright statements on the microformats themselves and 
the blanket assertion on the website and elsewhere
that "uFs are released under creative commons" is a misrepresentation, one that 
may or may not create liabilities for the admins,
but it certainly creates uncertainties for any potential uF user and developer.

The problem is this: when I place a bet on a technology like microformats, I'm 
betting that the underlying licenses will allow me to
do business effectively on predictable terms throughout the lifetime of my 
business. In fact, I'm betting not just my effort, but
the considerable investments made in my company by others.

The first ramification is that the current licenses are de facto and may not be 
securable should a dispute arise. I'm not a lawyer
so I won't dive into the issue of whether or not there is an implied license 
and whether or not that would be upheld in a court.  I
shouldn't have to speculate about some potential future licensing arrangement 
by the holders of the uF copyrights. It should be
known today, at the point that I contribute to, and utilize, the IP being 
developed by this community.  

Second, it's even worse if a copyright holder or admin is simultaneously 
attempting to secure patents that read on uFs. That's
coercive and manipulative, and given the assertions by the admins that uF will 
be CC, could constitute anti-trust behavior should a
patent holder later attempt to assert such a patent after establishing a uF as 
a de facto industry standard.  Fortunately, I know of
no one who is actually making such an attempt. However, without a clear, 
binding statement on behalf of those creating the IP, it is
always a possibility.

Third, there is no actual legal entity to license from, negotiate with, and 
seek redress from should such a problem arise. If the IP
for microformats was owned by a single entity, such as a trade association or 
standards body, then one would at least have a single
point of recourse in case the "promises" run into problems, such as perhaps not 
being owned by the individuals who offered it to the
community (because it is owned by their employer, for example).  Instead, the 
copyrights and liability for community action are
disturbingly spread throughout a number of individuals.  Any one of whom could 
make a frustrating choice, or overlook a complicating
situation, and thereby trigger a cascade of issues and potential lawsuits.

Having the IP in an ambiguous state is a mess.

I'm well aware of the anti-trust concerns of several members of the cabal, as 
well as the apparent belief that ignoring these issues
is the "lightweight" way to grow this movement.  However, several companies 
have already backed off their involvement in uF
precisely because the licensing and liability issues are so murky.

A particular challenge is that the vast majority of companies who make similar 
decisions will not bother to explain it to the rest
of the community. Once the choice to move on is made, there is precious little 
return from trying to convince a
governance-challenged cabal to actually change their behavior. A dismissal of 
the legal issues does not make the legal issues go
away. It makes those who understand the legal issues go away.

I understand that some members of the cabal have been discussing these issues, 
but I've yet to see or hear of any proposals to
address them.  Brian's most recent response leads me to believe that the "do 
nothing" faction

Re: Fwd: [uf-discuss] Legal implications of using Microformats

[Manu Sporny]

Brian Suda wrote:
> --- if you can give-us any other information, who exactly the company
> is, etc and any other information from the legal team we can attempt
> to work around these problems or debunk the FUD.

Our company is Digital Bazaar, Inc. we provide digital content delivery
services (buying and selling music, TV, film and books online) and want
to use several Microformats in development for Bitmunk as well as
integration into Firefox, Songbird, and Democracy Media Player (we're
currently talking with each team about Microformats).

Bitmunk website:
http://www.bitmunk.com/news/

DB corporate website:
http://www.digitalbazaar.com/

For those of you that don't know where this discussion started - it was
started by Guy Fraser on microformats-new:

http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-April/000241.html

The concern is that there is no standard copyright or patent statement
or policy that applies to the entire Microformats website. Specifically
the examples, formats, brainstorming, proposal, draft and specification
pages have a mix of copyright statements (some not at all). This can
cause problems if an individual authors a Microformat without releasing
copyright or patent claims.

Microformats can stick around in the "draft" process for a long time.
Often they have a statement of "intent" to release it under a certain
copyright/royalty-free licensing model. "Intent to provide under no
restrictions" is very different from "provide under no restrictions".

This could affect anybody implementing Microformats like so:

1. Author pulls together examples, formats, brainstorming, proposal and
draft of a Microformat with "intent" to release royalty-free.
2. Author applies for patent without notifying Microformats community.
3. Invented Microformat gets very popular over the next 2 years.
4. Author decides not to follow through with "intent" and instead
decides to sue for patent infringement. OR Author decides not to
relinquish copyright and becomes a nuisance to the community.

While this will probably not happen, a simple change to the Microformats
wiki can ENSURE that it doesn't happen.

-- manu
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Fwd: [uf-discuss] Legal implications of using Microformats

[Brian Suda]

-- Forwarded message --
From: Manu Sporny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Apr 27, 2007 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: [uf-new] Legal implications of using Microformats
To: "For discussion of new microformats." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


Brian, to answer your question -
(from 
http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-April/000242.html)

our company was under the impression
that all of this copyright and patent policy had been worked out. After
speaking with our legal team, it is clear to us that is has not been. We
cannot be first adopters of Microformats unless there is a clear
statement on the Microformats pages stating something to the effect of:

All authors provide these microformat proposals, drafts and
specifications under a cc-by-1.0 or later license (or something to that
effect). All authors do not claim any patent rights to concepts
described in proposals, drafts and specifications.

--- if you can give-us any other information, who exactly the company
is, etc and any other information from the legal team we can attempt
to work around these problems or debunk the FUD.

--
brian suda
http://suda.co.uk
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss