Subject: RE: IETF Operational question

From: "Valerie See \(LCA\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:14:38 -0800

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Chuck AdamsJr wrote:
> Brian and Jorge, I have been away from the IETF policy documents for a
> while, but in a statement as Brian referenced:
> 
> >    By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
> >    patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been
disclosed,
> >    and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance
with
> >    RFC 3667.
> 
> I understand that this includes disclosures under the submitter's
control.
> Patents and IPR associated with 3rd parties is not included.
> Am I correct in this interpretation?  Chuck

Chuck, as I read Section 6.1.3, "IPR of others" in RFC 3668 (aka 
technology-rights), I would think that your interpretation is right
(though obviously we need Jorge's/Harald's/IESG guidance). The specific
text in 6.1.3 is:

"If a person has information about IPR that may Cover IETF
Contributions, but the participant is not required to disclose
because they do not meet the criteria in Section 6.6 (e.g., the IPR
is owned by some other company), such person is encouraged to notify
the IETF by sending an email message to [email-masked].  Such a
notice should be sent as soon as reasonably possible after the person
realizes the connection."

In other words, a participant is encouraged to disclose knowledge
of third-party patents but not required to do so, or so I interpret
this. 

Jorge, Harald - is this how this should be read?

thanks, Val See

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

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:21:31 -0800

Valerie - what do you think the damage would be for someone withholding that
info intentionally.

T
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Valerie See (LCA)" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:14 AM
Subject: RE: IETF Operational question

disclosed,
with
control.

thanks, Val See

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:49:59 -0800

> Jorge, Harald - is this how this should be read?

That is how I read it.