IP: an interesting patent story>GeoWorks' IP claims could kill WAP

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

> Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 15:49:17 -0500
> To: Dave Farber <GeoWorks'%20IP%20claims%20could%20kill%20WAP">farber () cis upenn edu>
> From: "Daniel J. Weitzner" <GeoWorks'%20IP%20claims%20could%20kill%20WAP">djweitzner () w3 org>
>
>
> Forwarded Text ----
>
>  Top story in Computergram Int'l:
>
>  GeoWorks' Intellectual Property Claims Could "Kill WAP"
>
>  The surprise claim made by GeoWorks last week that it has essential
>  intellectual property rights (IPRs) for the wireless application protocol
>  (WAP) could kill the burgeoning wireless internet data transfer
>  specification, according to some industry figures and analysts. GeoWorks,
>  which is a member of the WAP Forum, has said that companies that develop
>  servers and software using wireless markup language - the basis of WAP -
>  will have to pay it a licensing fee of $20,000 annually - with additional
>  charges for WAP servers - if the companies have revenue of over $1m a year.
>  If GeoWorks succeeds with its IPR claim and WAP software companies have to
>  pay them fees they may start looking for cheaper alternatives.
>
>  "Personally, I think that that will kill WAP and lead to a mad scramble for
>  something that's free and universal," said Felix Lin, chairman of wireless
>  software developer AvantGo Inc. Seamus McAteer, director of web strategies
>  at Jupiter Communications, concurs, describing the GeoWorks licensing fee
>  proposal - particularly the clause that says that WAP server developers
>  should pay a $1 royalty for each seat or product including licensed
>  software - as insane.
>
>  GeoWorks says that its claim relates to a US patent it registered in June
>  1994, which relates to transforming wireless data so that it can be read on
>  variety of mobile devices with larger or smaller screens - especially
>  important for WAP servers pumping out data to a slew of different devices.
>  GeoWorks says that it followed procedure, putting the claim for essential
>  IPR to the WAP Forum in May 1999, and then got a team of lawyers to examine
>  the patent who found it was used in WML.
>
>  Bob Bogard, a spokesperson for GeoWorks said that last week's public
>  announcement of intellectual property rights was no surprise for the WAP
>  Forum. "They fully expected this sort of thing to happen," he said. However,
>  Greg Williams, chairman of the WAP Forum disagreed. He said he was surprised
>  by the public way GeoWorks put forward its claim. Companies in the WAP Forum
>  generally settle licensing and cross-licensing deals between themselves, he
>  said.
>
>  As a member of the WAP Forum GeoWorks has to agree to "fair and reasonable"
>  licensing terms for any WAP IPR it has. The issue will be if GeoWorks sticks
>  to its guns and insists on the licensing fees and royalties it has laid down
>  in its public statement. McAteer thinks that WAP Forum members such as
>  Ericsson, Phone.com and others will fight against the fees "tooth and nail."
>  "I'm very hopeful that fair and reasonable parties can work through this, it
>  would be a shame if something like this derailed WAP," Williams said.
>
>  Some other companies involved with the WAP Forum such as Phone.com that
>  ComputerWire contacted refused to comment because they said they had not had
>  chance to fully examine GeoWork's claims yet. Williams says that the members
>  should get a "better sense" of the issues at the next WAP board meeting on
>  February 9 in Rome, Italy. However, he could give no timescale for the
>  'issues' being resolved.
>
> --
> Daniel J. Weitzner                         +1.617.253.8036(v)
> Technology and Society Domain Leader       +1.617.258.5999(f)
> World Wide Web Consortium                 http://www.w3.org/
> MIT/LCS