Re: [OAUTH-WG] IPR on OAuth bearer

Sam Hartman <> Wed, 09 May 2012 21:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AFBB11E80BF for <>; Wed, 9 May 2012 14:45:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.467
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.802, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g-hh+HpoY6Xu for <>; Wed, 9 May 2012 14:45:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3093911E8076 for <>; Wed, 9 May 2012 14:45:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAB2020348; Wed, 9 May 2012 17:41:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 1796E448D; Wed, 9 May 2012 17:45:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <>
To: Michael Thomas <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 17:45:39 -0400
In-Reply-To: <> (Michael Thomas's message of "Wed, 09 May 2012 13:31:56 -0700")
Message-ID: <>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: " WG" <>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] IPR on OAuth bearer
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 21:45:51 -0000

So, here are statements that  you could make as part of this discussion
that would be entirely in scope:

1) I've read the IPR. Prior to this disclosure I was interested in
developing|deploying|shipping  an implementation of this
specification. Now I am not.

2) I think you could go so far as to say. Based on this IPR I would no
longer feel comfortable making an open-source implementation of this
spec available.

3) Or on the other  side: I've reviewed this new IPR and I believe I
could implement|ship|deploy|whatever this specification.

Or if you don't like giving out as much information as 1-3:

4) I've reviewed the new IPr and I recommend that we not advance this

5) I've reviewed the IPR and I do recommend we advance.

Obviously, people may weigh statements of the form 1-3 with more value
than 4-5. However it's really hard to get many organizations to say
something in the 1-3 range.

Other valid things to say in such a context include:

6) We've successfully obtained any licenses we believe that we need in
order to implement this specification given the IPR.

7) We attempted to obtain the licenses we needed in order to implement
given this IPR but were unsuccessful.

 believe all the above statements are acceptable. In particular, none of
 them comment on the validity of the IPR nor give legal advice about

I believe you could even go so far as to say  something like I believe
that an open-source implementation of this technology is|is not
important to whether we should standardize it. I believe we've come very
close to that in the past.