RE: BOCU-1 spec

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Tue Feb 20 2007 - 06:39:09 CST

  • Next message: fantasai: "Re: CSS3 Text and UAX14"

    De la part de Doug Ewell:
    > You'd probably want to check to make sure that the resulting spec didn't
    > infringe on the individual claims made in the BOCU patent.

    Are you sure that this (individual claims) is required? I've seen comments
    about US patents where infringement is demonstrated only when *all* claims
    are infringed. If you drop only only claim (for example some details about
    the implementation technics), and replace it by something else not covered
    in that patent, then it is not the same product, and it is not patented.

    Then the question is whever these considerations do apply internationally
    (are there countries where the US patent is honoured, but where patent
    claims can be enforced individually?)

    Regarding the challenge of licence of ICU in courts, it would be very
    difficult to counter, because this would also challenge the licences of
    almost all open softwares licenced under the X licence (and the MIT would
    not like to have this famous licence broken).

    The good question is then: does the IBM-signed ICU licence cover the
    included IBM's IPR regarding BOCU-* patents?
    * if yes, then BOCU-* patents are validly licenced for free in ICU.
    * if no, then how can BOCU-* algorithms be present in ICU sources (i.e. is
    it compatible with ICU licence)? So IBM would have violated itself the ICU
    licence by including BOCU-* in ICU sources (yes but, he is the IPR owner, so
    IBM can do whatever it wants, not like other ICU contributors)... But I have
    not seen any explicit licence exclusion in ICU sources files, so all files
    are covered globally by the same licence (and the ICU licence provides no
    way that allows excluding some files from its project).

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 20 2007 - 06:41:49 CST