[KI-LC] [BoT] A new Non-Assert Covenant to consider adopting

Eve Maler eve at xmlgrrl.com
Fri Nov 20 20:02:04 EST 2009


Thanks for looking this up!  It's what I should have done in the first place. Maybe David thought there was special power in the "required elements of optional portions" part -- it does sound broader than just plain old required portions, though most specs these days are "frameworks" and as such are riddled with MAYs right at the very top level anyway...

	Eve

On 20 Nov 2009, at 4:45 PM, Bill Smith wrote:

> Here's the  definition from the OWF Agreement
> 
> Necessary Claims. "Necessary Claims" are those patent claims that a party owns or controls, including those claims acquired after the Date below, that are necessary to implement the required portions (including the required elements of optional portions) of the Specification that are described in detail and not merely referenced in the Specification.
> 
> Looks fairly standard to me and only applies to those claims necessary to implement, and then only the required portions of a spec. As written, if there is a way to implement without infringing on a claim, then an implementer might be required to avoid the claim, regardless of how difficult that might be or how inefficient such an implementation might be. Or they could choose to pay for the right to the "necessary claim".


Eve Maler
eve at xmlgrrl.com
http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/attachments/20091120/855e9fb1/attachment.html 


More information about the LC mailing list