Question : IMPORTANT - WAP 1.x vs. the Internet: Does a legal agreement to license content on the "Internet" include the ability to use WAP as well??

A partner was given licensing rights to promote content over the Internet to their clients.  They have since launched a WAP-based service promoting the same licensed content which we, as a small company, believe violates the agreement.

By definition, the Internet (does anyone have the "official" definition of the Internet?  IETF?  W3C?  other?) is a public IP-based network.  WAP 1.x is built on a proprietary protocol stack requiring gateways in order to communicate with the broader Internet.  Given that WAP 1.x is neither based on IP nor is it part of the public Internet (runs atop service provider network) we believe this makes it a different medium (i.e. it is not the "Internet" which is what our original agreement states).

We're looking for validation of this argument and others that could support our cause.

Can it in fact be demonstrated that the public Internet and that WAP are in fact two different mediums and hence that a separate license needs to be obtained in order to leverage this new medium?

Also, does this condition go away once WAP 2.0 is commercially available given that 2.0 will natively speak "IP"?

Finally, are there any other IP-based wireless networks being used by cell phones in the near future?

Thanks!

Answer : IMPORTANT - WAP 1.x vs. the Internet: Does a legal agreement to license content on the "Internet" include the ability to use WAP as well??

"A partner was given licensing rights to promote content over the Internet to their clients"

Presumably meant was HTML content via HTTP but was not stated explicitly.

"WAP 1.x is built on a proprietary protocol stack requiring gateways in order to communicate with the broader Internet.  Given that WAP 1.x is neither based on IP nor is it part of the public Internet (runs atop service provider network) we believe this makes it a different medium (i.e. it is not the "Internet" which is what our original agreement states)."

Difficult. The ownership of WAP is with effectively a private organization who have made an "open source" specification. The bit from the WAP server to the Telephone Company IS IP based, IS Internet based (WML in XML a sort of HTML variant) and IS transported by HTTP. Now the bit from the phone to the telco isn't BUT internally in the phone, when a link is selected, when data is pushed an IP address (or a domain name) IS transmitted. I'd admit that the WAP is not going by P2P over the "voice" channel (like at home with a 56K modem) but that is really tertiary since IP addresses are still being sent around.

"Also, does this condition go away once WAP 2.0 is commercially available given that 2.0 will natively speak "IP"?"

Yes and No. It still doesn't go via the voice channel, but the principles are still the same.

"Finally, are there any other IP-based wireless networks being used by cell phones in the near future"

Probably not. There is a problem of the Telcos investing in the hardware to provide the service. UTMS will probably break most of them.

"We're looking for validation of this argument and others that could support our cause."

Zsa Zsa Gabor once said, don't get even baby, get it all. It is hardly worth while going to court on this. You might win. But it ties up a lot of talent. If you're a small company like us, it is better to look for another opening. First, you could do WAP as well. It is not that difficult. Secondly you could try J2ME (Java on the phone). These's a lot of openings for added value services on these more sophisticated phones.

HTH