Re: Fwd: [uf-discuss] Legal implications of using Microformats
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
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
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, span class=geo title=lat;long. . ./span 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: Fwd: [uf-discuss] Legal implications of using Microformats
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, span class=geo title=lat;long. . ./span 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
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 is carrying the day, hence this email. My
Fwd: [uf-discuss] Legal implications of using Microformats
-- 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
Re: Fwd: [uf-discuss] Legal implications of using Microformats
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
