
	Where results make sense

Topic: Reasonable and Non Discriminatory Licensing

Related Topics

Rand

Vitali set

Axiom of choice

Hausdorff paradox

	Reasonable and Non Discriminatory Licensing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		Reasonable and Non Discriminatory Licensing (RAND) is a term for a type of licensing typically used during standardisation processes.
		The second, more subtle, limitation of RAND licenses in standardisation is that the term does not say anything about the relation of the license to the product cost.
		A way to partially overcome this would be to use royalty free licenses, but this would not solve the submarine patent issue.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Reasonable_and_Non_Discriminatory_Licensing (470 words)

	Open standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		Being an open standard also does not necessarily imply that no licenses to patent rights are needed to use the standard or that such licenses are available for free.
		In 2002 and 2003 there was some controversy about using reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) licensing for the use of patented technology in web standards.
		The GNU General Public License includes a section that enjoins anyone who distributes a program released under the GPL from enforcing patents on subsequent users of the software or derivative works.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Open_standard (595 words)

	The Problem of Software Patents in Standards
		The rise of intellectual property licensing in software, and its inevitable extension to software standards, has led to a more rigorous definition of what governance and intellectual property terms are called for in something that is to be considered an open standard.
		The standards organization may require the patent holder to license the use of the specific claims within the patent that are necessary to implement the standard, rather than all claims of the patent.
		Non-disclosure of a patent or patent application with intent to collect a royalty or license in a discriminatory fashion later on should be both a felony and a tort.
	perens.com /Articles/PatentFarming.html (6733 words)

	[No title]
		Although a number of reasonably objective criteria (described below and in section 4) are available to guide the IESG in making a decision to move a specification onto, along, or off the standards track, there is no algorithmic guarantee of elevation to or progression along the standards track for any specification.
		In this case, or when it is felt for some other reason that an existing standards track specification should be retired, the IESG shall approve a change of status of the old specification(s) to Historic.
		This license includes the right to copy, publish and distribute the contribution in any way, and to prepare derivative works that are based on or incorporate all or part of the contribution, the license to such derivative works to be of the same scope as the license of the original contribution.
	www.ietf.org /rfc/rfc2026.txt (9703 words)

	OASIS - Who We Are - Intellectual Property Rights
		The Obligated Party may also include a term providing that such license may be suspended with respect to the Licensee if that Licensee first sues the Obligated Party for infringement by the Obligated Party of any of the Licensee's Essential Claims covering the same OASIS Committee Specification or OASIS Standard.
		License terms that are fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory beyond those specifically mentioned above are left to the Licensees and Obligated Parties involved.
		With TCs operating under the RF on RAND Terms IPR Mode, license terms that are fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory beyond those specifically mentioned in Section 10.2.1 may also be included, and such additional RAND terms are left to the Licensees and Obligated Parties involved.
	www.oasis-open.org /who/intellectualproperty.php (3189 words)

	W3C Patent Policy Framework
		For example, a reciprocal license may be required to be available to all, and a reciprocal license may itself be conditioned on a further reciprocal license from all (including, in the case of a license to a Contribution, the original licensee).
		Patent licensing commitments made by a Member with respect to a Recommendation shall be binding on the Member in perpetuity, regardless of the Member's future relationship with the W3C, unless the proposed Recommendation has failed to become a Recommendation within two years after the final Last Call Working Draft.
		Licenses shall be deemed to begin one day after the RAND opt-out period ends for a given Recommendation.
	www.w3.org /TR/2001/WD-patent-policy-20010816 (5414 words)

	XML.com: Patents, Royalties, and the Future of the Web
		A reasonable royalty is one that a person would be able to pay to the patentee and still derive a reasonable financial profit from use of the patented invention.
		Elliotte Rusty Harold's note of 17 August, establishes a new licensing model, RAND ("reasonable and non-discriminatory"), which would allow the W3C to create standards the implementation of which could require royalty payments to patent holders.
		Standards that require licensing fees to implement are, for obvious reasons, totally incompatible with the use of free software.
	www.xml.com /lpt/a/2001/10/10/patents-web-future.html (2755 words)

	[No title]
		An SDO needs to know about the patent landscape, and the possible licensing terms for essential patents, before a standard is adopted and firms invest in the implementation of the standard.
		Patents are licensed on a royalty free basis, or c.
		Patents are licensed on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms.
	www.cptech.org /ip/wipo/a2k/pdos.doc (1000 words)

	IP-WARS.NET \|\| The New OS (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-03)
		In addition to the license problems, FOSS developers may have a problem if they are trying to release their project under a license like the GPL that doesn't permit things like patent encumbrances.
		These licensing terms are similar to how others in the technology industry license their own patents, typically referred to as "commercially reasonable" terms.
		Hmm, generally, they'll license their IPR on typical RAND terms, but generally, they have to consider each case, and even thought they generally will license their IPR, they reserve the right to NOT be non-discriminatory in who they generally grant a license too.
	www.ip-wars.net /story/2005/3/9/202136/4545 (4209 words)

	PPWG - Formal Objection Number 2 - 16 July 2001
		It is unfair to require a licensing commitment from non-working group members because they were not involved in the development of the Recommendation and as such they are not familiar with the Recommendation.
		A membership-wide licensing commitment is overly broad, because even if a member does not participate in the development of a Recommendation and never implements that Recommendation, the member still incurs a licensing obligation with respect to that Recommendation.
		Under the current licensing commitment, a member who does not review every W3C Recommendation and who does not analyze its patent portfolio with respect to each Recommendation, risks that by default the company is granting licenses to patents in which it might otherwise want to preserve its rights, e.g.
	www.w3.org /2001/08/ppwg-fo2-16July2001.html (1942 words)

	The Open Source Initiative: OSI letter of comment on W3C's proposed RAND policy
		Clause 5 would discriminate against open-source developers, who operate in small volunteer project groups and have neither the wherewithal to pay license fees nor the shelter of a fictive legal entity with which a license might be negotiated.
		The payment of royalties under a RAND license shall be waived for any licensor of a computer program that is provided under a license that does not impose a license fee for the right to the source code, to make copies, to modify, and to distribute the computer program.
		We urge the W3C to take this opportunity not only to affirm its royalty-free-only license policy, but to institute a requirement that no proposal may become a W3C standard unless it is backed by an open-source reference implementation on an open-source platform, with patent grants sufficient to ensure that the reference implementation remains unencumbered.
	opensource.org /press_releases/w3c/html (1123 words)

	Cover Pages: Patents and Open Standards
		Companies involved in standards activities may promise RAND (purportedly "reasonable and non-discriminatory") license terms for their patented technologies required in the implementation of the emerging standard, but their employees are sometimes prevented from discussing licensing details.
		Reasonable defies formulation of an operational definition which can serve to guarantee to multiple parties that the fair interests of all will be served -- once the details of a future licensing agreement are worked out.
		Managing RAND licensing terms is burdensome [to W3C and its Members]: "One of the greatest challenges to W3C is being able to move at a pace commensurate with its role in the industry and with the reasonable expectations of the broader community.
	xml.coverpages.org /patents.html (12808 words)

	OASIS - Committees - OASIS ebXML Collaboration Protocol Profile and Agreement TC (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-03)
		This patent license is available to all entities willing to grant IBM a reciprocal license.
		The license granted by IBM, for the CPPA specifications, is for the full relevant patent term or for as long as required to implement the specifications, whichever occurs first.
		The license is available to any entity desiring to implement the specifications.
	www.oasis-open.org /committees/ebxml-cppa/documents/ibm_ipr_statement.shtml (666 words)

	MS ‘Software Choice’ scheme a clever fraud \| The Register
		When public funds are used to support software research and development, the innovations that result from this work should be licensed in ways that take into account both the desirability of broadly sharing those advances as well as the desirability of applying those advances to commercialized products.
		Thus, the licensing of taxpayer-funded software should fight embrace-and-extend, the tactic that Microsoft uses to gain a monopoly lock on a market through the use of deliberate incompatibility.
		But the licenses that are best at fighting embrace-and-extend are the very ones that Microsoft eschews: the GPL, the LGPL, and the Sun Industry Standards Source License.
	www.theregister.co.uk /content/4/26616.html (1895 words)

	Testimony of Daniel J. Weitzner - April 18, 2002
		Second, the "reasonable, non-discriminatory terms" (RAND) licensing model common in many traditional standards bodies is unlikely to be accepted in the Web environment.
		Patent policy considerations for any technical standards effort must be grounded in an understanding of the goals of the underlying technology, as well as the unique characteristics of the environment in which the standards will be used.
		Intermind, at the time a W3C Member and participant in the P3P working groups, offered a "licensing program that will be compatible with the growth of standards for communications object technology," but did not make the precise terms public.
	www.ftc.gov /opp/intellect/020418weitzner.htm (2164 words)

	No more JPEGs – ISO to withdraw image standard \| The Register
		"Reasonable and non discriminatory (RAND) terms are typically published, and the same for everyone.
		"This is a licensing program: we have a legitimate patent," she told us.
		He would like to see what clauses of a standard a claim applies to within six months of the standard being published; and for patent claimants to publish details of their licensing.
	www.theregister.co.uk /content/4/26339.html (872 words)

	IPRarticle
		For example a common case is for the policy to requires the standard be "withdrawn" in the case of essential IPR for which acceptable licensing terms can not be acquired Another option is to return the document to the technical committee.
		One consequence of this is that we consider that it is the responsibility of the end user to decide whether their implementation will require them to seek a license or not and we do not expect ISO or IEC committees to make a determination about the relevance of a particular patent.
		One of the procedures ANSI suggests is the addition of requests for disclosure and commitments to license during the several iterative ballots that are typical of a standards development process.
	www.gtwassociates.com /answers/IPR%20article.htm (2907 words)

	HP to W3C: We Support Royalty-Free Standards for the Web Infrastructure (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-03)
		There are many reasons to dislike RAND, but the one I focus on as HP's Linux and Open Source Strategist is the fact that a required patent royalty is incompatible with Open Source software.
		HP feels that the prospect of subsequent discussions of potentially royalty bearing licenses is itself an unacceptable burden on standards discussions.
		The licensing of patents embedded in standards must be compatible with the GPL license that is applied to the Linux operating system kernel, the MIT-derived license that is applied to the Apache web server, and a number of other software licenses.
	www.advogato.org /article/348.html (2363 words)

	The Meaning of Open Standards
		This was quite reasonable as the standards stakeholders then were the creators of the standards [3].
		While commercial licensing is the least open process, it may not be more costly than the RAND approach.
		Commercial licensing may be the most prevalent approach to IPR arrangements.
	www.csrstds.com /openstds.html (5066 words)

	[M4IF Discuss] To those concerned about MPEG- 4 Licensing ... (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-03)
		On the other hand, all participants in the MPEG standards process with patents have agreed by written statement to ISO to reasonable and Non-Discriminatory licensing.
		Note, too, that in the case of MPEG LA pools, licensors always pay the license as well.
		And regardless of all this, we need the license fast - even weeks is too long now.
	lists.mpegif.org /pipermail/discuss/2002-May/000323.html (344 words)

	Berners-Lee: Keep the Web Royalty-Free
		For that reason, it is still highly critical that the "communal" nature of the specifications is preserved.
		Berners-Lee took off his hat as W3C Director for his speech, stressing that it was delivered as personal opinion: he was highly pointed in his support of royalty free licensing for web technology, a position that doesn't meet universal approval within the consortium.
		The new patent policy is that every working group will aim to achieve royalty free licensing terms by the time a spec reaches the final Recommendation stage at the W3C.
	www.oreillynet.com /pub/wlg/1390 (541 words)

	W3C patent plan draws protests \| CNET News.com
		Members whose contributions become the basis for working group efforts would have an additional obligation to disclose relevant patent claims and licensing conditions at the time of their submission.
		If they're not willing to license particular technology on RAND terms, they must opt out of specific patent claims they hold, normally within 60 days after the publication of the last-call working draft.
		In June, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates called the GNU General Public License that governs the distribution of some open-source software "Pac-man like," saying it "is impossible for a commercial company to use any of that work or build on any of that work."
	news.cnet.com /news/0-1005-200-7373745.html (1786 words)

	XML Protocol Working Group - IPR Statements
		The 'License Type' column is a W3C Team short-hand summary of the Member's licensing terms as one of two general types of licenses: 1) Royalty-Free (RF), or 2) Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory terms (RAND).
		The precise meaning of the license is determined exclusively by the license language provided by the patent holder.
		One condition of this license shall be the party's agreement to not assert patent rights against TIBCO and other companies for their implementation of the W3C Recommendation.
	www.w3.org /2000/xp/Group/2/06/17-IPR-statements.html (1448 words)

	Perspective: The patent threat to the Web \| Perspectives \| CNET News.com
		Had the decision gone for so-called "RAND" patents--licensed with "reasonable and non-discriminatory terms," but sometimes requiring royalty payments--the effect would have been to create a tollbooth on the Internet, owned by the largest corporations, collecting a fee for the right to implement open standards.
		Thus, patent holders will still have lots of opportunities to sell licenses to developers who wish to practice their patents for any other purpose.
		Secret applications lead to "submarine" patents, which surface years after developers commit to commercial use of an algorithm in the belief that it is unrestricted, and put those developers in the unenviable position of having to license the patent, write their way around it, or quit.
	news.com.com /2010-1071-961018.html (1451 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)