[Owasp-leaders] Owasp Inquiry on "Cenzic patent on 'Fault injection methods and apparatus' "

Jim Manico jim.manico at owasp.org
Sat Feb 19 18:39:09 EST 2011


We do not need the boards approval, as Jeff has pointed out many times. Let's get a few lawyers together who are kind enough to do this for free. 

It would be a gift if these lawyers would professionally research this issue and inform OWASP of their opinion over this matter. 

Go for it, and I'll offer to coordinate these efforts if no one else steps up.

-Jim Manico
http://manico.net

On Feb 19, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Tin Zaw <tin.zaw at owasp.org> wrote:

> Hi Abe,
> 
> Thank you for pointing out a couple of important points -- OWASP may be at risk on patent infringement and OWASP needs to consult with a lawyer.
> 
> There is a possibility that Cenzic will license the patent in question to OWASP, free of charge. They can't publicly comment as they are in the middle of a law suit, so this is a situation that our lawyers need to talk to their lawyers on getting the patent license. 
> 
> I believe we can, as OWASP leaders, seek out a lawyer who is interested in this case on pro bono basis and introduce to the board. The board should take it from there.
> 
> I can contact a friend of mine who is a patent law professor to see if any lawyer interested to represent OWASP on pro bono. I don't want to duplicate the effort though, if the board has its own plans underway. 
> 
> What does the board think?
> 
> Thanks. 
> 
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Abraham Kang <abraham.kang at owasp.org> wrote:
> I forgot to mention that many law firms are required to do pro bono work.  OWASP being a non-profit might qualify for free legal advice.
>  
> If someone can give me authorization (to be OWASP's agent in this matter) I can try try to contact some law firms to see if they would be willing to help us out.
> Regards,
> Abe
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Abraham Kang <abraham.kang at owasp.org> wrote:
> DISCLAIMER:  I am not a lawyer.  OWASP needs to seek council of a licensed attorney.  Any opinions stated here are of a student from an academic perspective.
>  
> After reviewing all of the comments.
>  
> I have a strong feeling that the companies that are being sued will be putting forth the corresponding arguements to fight the Cenzic patent.
>  
> Patent defense is usually a costly endeavor (legal fees, experts, etc.).  I feel that OWASP should stay out of the fight against the Cenzic patent.
>  
> However, it should be noted that if OWASP knows of Cenzic's patent and understands that some of their products may infringe, OWASP could become a willful infringer. Which would result in enhanced damages if sued.
>  
> I think it would be a good idea for someone at OWASP to contact legal council at Cenzic.  In addition, it might be a good idea to freeze all work on possibly infringing OWASP projects as well as stopping distriubtion of potentially infringing products.
> 
> Again, OWASP needs to contact a licensed attorney to understand all of the implications of the Cenzic patent.
>  
> Regards,
> Abe
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
> >From an "almost Lawyer"
> 
> ****
> 
> First I want to preface this with a disclaimer.  Although I have graduated
> from Lincoln Law School of San Jose.  I am not a lawyer.  To get adequate
> advice I recommend seeking council of a licensed attorney.
> 
> After skimming the MPEP, there are two direct means to challenge a patent.
> Inter parte and ex parte reexamination.  Prior art is used as evidence that
> claims in a patent invalid due to novelty, non-obviousness, or violated a
> statuory bar.  Prior art in reexaminations is limited to prior patents or
> printed publications.  There are also specific procedures which need to be
> followed when submitting prior art including serving the patent holder with
> a copy of the prior art.
> 
> The specific details are in MPEP section 2200-.
> 
> It probably would be a good idea to gather as much prior art using the
> "community" before making the formal request for inter parte or ex parte
> reexamination.
> 
> 
> 
> > Funny old world.....
> >
> > Sent from my HTC hero.
> >
> > owasp board member
> >
> > On 18 Feb 2011 15:14, "Mark Curphey" <mark at curphey.com> wrote:
> >
> >  Pure FYI and not that it has any relevance whatsoever to this but cenzic
> > was founded by HB Gary (Penny and Greg). Hmmmm.
> >
> > Sent from my Phone
> >
> >
> >
> > On Feb 18, 2011, at 4:30 AM, "Eoin" <eoin.keary at owasp.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Who on the list uses Cenzic?
> > ...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> > OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> > https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Tin Zaw, CISSP, CSSLP
> Chapter Leader and President, OWASP Los Angeles Chapter
> Chair, OWASP Global Chapter Committee | 
> Google Voice: (213) 973-9295
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/tinzaw
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
> OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.owasp.org/pipermail/owasp-leaders/attachments/20110219/60722245/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list