Subject: what "relates"?

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 17:50:16 -0700 (PDT)

Hi -

Steve Bellovin asked me to forward this question to this mailing
list.

The proposed clarification to RFC 2026 says:

|  c/ in order for the working group to have the information needed to
|     make an informed decision about the use of a particular
|     technology, all participants in the working group must disclose
|     the existence of any IPR that they believe relates to the working
|     group deliberations.  This includes copyrights, patents and patent
|     applications. 

It would be really nice if the BOF discussion went into the question
of what is meant by "relates".  Specifically, I'm curious about this
scenario:

	Specification requires that data must be sorted,
	but does not dictate which sort algorithm to use.
	(Specification of the choice of mechanism is not
	necessary for interoperability.)  A particpant's
	company has patented bubble sort (a possible, though
	not necessarily optimal mechanism), and participant
	is aware of patent.  Must participant disclose?

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  1-3141
 [email-masked]  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San José, California 95131  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 ------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:19:58 +0900

> 	is aware of patent.  Must participant disclose?

(1) Ask your lawyer.  (2) ianalbimho if you think that in the future you
might want to inform anyone, another company in your area or a consumer,
of what you believe your rights are in relation to the specification,
you should disclose now.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 22:20:23 -0400

> 	is aware of patent.  Must participant disclose?

here's a stab at an answer: if the IPR (or applied-for IPR) seems likely 
to affect the ability of anyone to efficiently implement the protocol, 
effectively use the protocol, sell or distribute an efficient and effective
implementation of the protocol, or publically claim to implement the 
protocol, then it must be disclosed.

(the above would even include trademarks if you had to use a trademark
to claim to implement the protocol.)

the next question is: what does "disclose" mean?    and can we really
expect those with pending applications to disclose enough details to
allow a working group to decide whether the patent would be a threat?

Keith

---

From: "Robert Barr" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:50:51 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> Randy Presuhn
> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 5:50 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: what "relates"?
>
>
> Hi -
>
There is better language in 2.2.1.A and this language should be used
consistently throughout the document to define the disclosure obligation:

".intellectual property rights which cover or may cover the technology,
specifications or standards described in the contribution that . are
reasonably and personally known to the contributor"

rbarr, Cisco Systems