Subject: -technology - blanket RF statments

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 00:06:04 -0400 (EDT)

thomas asks:
> > 6.4.3  The requirement for an IPR disclosure is not satisfied by the
> >    submission of a blanket statement of possible IPR on every
> >    Contribution.  This is the case because the aim of the disclosure
> >    requirement is to provide information about specific IPR against
> >    specific technology under discussion in the IETF.  The requirement is
> >    also not satisfied by a blanket statement of willingness to license
> >    all potential IPR under fair and non-discriminatory terms for the
> >    same reason.  However, the requirement for an IPR disclosure is
> >    satisfied by a blanket statement of the IPR discloser's willingness
> >    to license all of its potential IPR meeting the requirements of
> >    Section 6.6 (and either Section 6.1.1 or 6.1.2) to implementers of an
> >    IETF specification on a royalty-free basis and other reasonable and
> >    non- discriminatory terms.
> 
> The text after the "however" struck be as odd when I first read it.
> 
> I assume the last sentence is intended to mean, if one is willing to
> license royalty-free, a blanket statement to that effect is sufficient
> and that such an IPR holder is no longer under any obligation to
> disclose which technology any IPR applies to. Is this the correct
> intent?

not quite - it actually is trying to say that in most cases blanket
statements about IPR should not be used but that blanket statements
that say "everything is RF" are ok - I guess that could be read to say
that someone issuing such a blanlet stament does not have to
do anything more but I do not see anything wrong with that reading

Scott

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

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 12:56:43 -0400

[resend, as this appears to have not gotten out]

> that say "everything is RF" are ok -

To be clear, I have always understood the "Generic IPR Notices" on the
IPR web pages to be FYI type statements, that allow a company to state
what their general terms are. However, they are mostly Good Will
statements, because in the case that specific IPR exists with regards
to some technology, a specific disclosure statement needs to be filed
anyway. But given a generic statement, one could make a very good
guess as to what the licensing terms of any disclosure would be, which
is certainly useful.  However, those statements have never been
"sufficient" disclosure by themselves and "do not satisfy" the
requirements for disclosure as listed above.

What I worry about (and I'm not a lawyer), is that the language in the
document says that a generic statement saying someone will grant
royalty free licenses satisfies the obligation to disclose, and no
specific disclosures on a per technology/patent basis are needed. I'd
be fine with that, if I understood what royalty free _really_
means. The document uses the words:

>    However, the requirement for an IPR disclosure is

The wording "and other reasonable and non-discriminatory terms" seems
like it could add some caveats to "royalty-free". If folk can give me
assurances that the wording does not add hidden caveats or other
considerations that a WG would want to consider, I'm fine with the
current wording. Otherwise, I worry that allowing folk to not disclose
adds a potential loophole to the disclosure rules that might turn out
to hurt down the road. (Note: I suspect that this is a question for
the lawyers, and I am also attempting to get this answered offline,
but have not been able to yet.)

> I guess that could be read to say that someone issuing such a
> blanlet stament does not have to do anything more but I do not see
> anything wrong with that reading

If I was confident that there is a shared understanding of what
the term "royalty-free" meant, I'd agree.

Thomas