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

Jim Manico jim.manico at owasp.org
Sat Feb 26 23:25:05 EST 2011


Tim,

We already have https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-legal set
up. It's been dead for a while but I think its a good place to encourage
lawyers who wish to donate time to congregate and chat about relevant
appsec legal issues.

I'm eager to get this rolling. Let me know how I can help. I know of at
least 3 lawyers in the OWASP community who would jump in.

- Jim

> Hi Jim,
> 
> Yes, you're right, we don't need board's permission. I have asked my friend
> to see if he can point me to a patent lawyer who can help receive the patent
> on pro bono basis.
> 
> We will need board's signature later and we do need to coordinate so that
> OWASP is not pursuing redundant efforts or conflicting strategies. Perhaps
> Jim and I can coordinate these efforts.
> 
> I will also ask legal counsel at work to see if they know any lawyer
> interested to work for a non profit on pro bono basis. I will talk to
> Mandeep offline to see how likely they will want to license us the patent
> and how to proceed.
> 
> Leaders, let us know if you have any thoughts/input on OWASP licensing the
> patent in question.
> 
> Tin
> 
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico at owasp.org> wrote:
> 
>> 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>
>> 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>
>>> 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>
>>>> 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>
>>>>> 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>
>>>>> eoin.keary at owasp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who on the list uses Cenzic?
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>  > _______________________________________________
>>>>>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>>>>>> <OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org>OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
>>>>>> <https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders>
>>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>>>>> <OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org>OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
>>>>> <https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders>
>>>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OWASP-Leaders mailing list
>>>  <OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org>OWASP-Leaders at lists.owasp.org
>>>  <https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders>
>>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-leaders
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Tin Zaw, CISSP, CSSLP
>> Chapter Leader and President, OWASP Los Angeles Chapter<http://www.owaspla.org/>
>> Chair, OWASP Global Chapter Committee<http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Global_Chapter_Committee>|
>> Google Voice: (213) 973-9295
>> LinkedIn: <http://www.linkedin.com/in/tinzaw>
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/tinzaw
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
> 
> 



More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list