Subject: Re: New angle on the patent problem
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 15:03:32 -0400

God I hate Lotus Notes.  Damned reply thing doesn't include CC's by default.

Jonathan S. Shapiro, Ph. D.
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Phone: +1 914 784 7085  (Tieline: 863)
Fax: +1 914 784 7595

---------------------- Forwarded by Jonathan S Shapiro/Watson/IBM on 09/13/99
03:03 PM ---------------------------

Jonathan S Shapiro
09/13/99 03:03 PM

From: Jonathan S Shapiro/Watson/IBM@ibmus
Subject:  Re: New angle on the patent problem  (Document link: Jonathan S

>The work by Mumbles, a derivative worked based on the original but
>including Mumble's modifications, is no longer covered by the license as
>terms have been violated by Mumble's refusal to make their changes
>available....  Patent actions against Mumbles (but not to, say, a
>downstream recipient who'd received the work _and_ the source and was
>freely redistributing both and otherwise complying with the license)
>would *not* reflect an action against a licensee for a work covered
>under the license, as the work isn't covered once the license is
>terminated.  That's clear, like crystal, right?

Careful! The collectivization of classes embedded in the poison patent clause
cuts both ways.  If they infringe on one thing but comply on another, and you
sue on the bad thing, then you might get hung up by the fact that they are still
covered under the license from the thing on which they comply.

This can be fixed; my point is that the wording of the poison patent clause must
be considered carefully.

>why I constructed a trigger _affecting the current work_ based on
>actions _affecting any of a class of works_.

I think your way has the same effect and is better.

>Fair enough.  Though I'd like to avoid granting license only required
>in, say, hardware peripherally associated with the software.  The
>conventional language I've seen is similar to:
>> [grant of license to patents] to the extent necessary to make,
>> have made, use, and sell the Covered Work (or portions) without
>> infringement, and without any greater extent than shall be
>> necessary for these purposes.

Looks plausible.

Jonathan S. Shapiro