Re: Fw: Re: DAML+OIL submission to W3C (copyright/patent)

From: Deborah McGuinness (
Date: 10/23/01

that sounds like too strong a wording that i would expect lucent to need to
modify (and in fact, most of us should want that modified).
now that i am at a university, i have not filed patents  and my guess is i wont
while i am here however if i need
to run the same interpretation peter states below by the stanford lawyers, i
would presume they will have the same issue the lucent lawyers have since they
have some rights to anything that i would patent while at stanford.

Also, if any of us go out and do a startup company in this area, those
companies may want to file patents.
i would expect some of those patents to be extensions of the submission.
if that was precluded, then we should all have problems signing the document.
also, if any of the people who need to sign this other than peter are at
companies, they would be expected
to have the same problems peter is having.


"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:

> The biggest part of the problem is what Dan is asking that Lucent sign
> something that gives up the right to seek royalties for any patent related
> to the submission even if it had nothing to do with the activities of the
> joint committee.  (This is my reading of the wording, which may, of course,
> not be correct.)
> peter

 Deborah L. McGuinness
 Knowledge Systems Laboratory
 Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241
 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020
 (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)  801 705

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST