Subject: Re: Disclosure forms - modified version-

From: "Lanton, Edward A" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:21:30 -0800

In light of the fact that disclosure of licensing information is not
mandatory, the proposed change is appropriate.  I suggest, however, that
the disclosure form be further modified by the modification of the
header to section IV: 

Proposed:
IV. Licensing Declaration (Optional)

Current

IV. Licensing Declaration

-----------------------------------

The individual making the declarations is asked to risk his or her
personal assets not only as to representations and warranties as to
their authority, but now, if they choose box f, representations and
warranties as to the disclosure of all licensing terms.  

These warranties and representations appear to be unlimited as to scope
of damages and as to time limitations.  These are very serious and may
expose the discloser to very significant legal liabilities.  Many people
making disclosures may not have benefit of legal counsel, especially
since they are making the disclosures in their individual capacity as
opposed to their capacity as employees.    

If IETF is asking for such broad warranties and representations, IETF is
obligated to make it very clear to the disclosers that making the
licensing claim (and, thus, the representations and warranties) is
optional. 

It seems only fair.    

Edward Lanton
Intel Legal Team
Digital Enterprise Group
 
Intel Corporation
2111 N.E. 25th Ave.
Hillsboro, OR 97124
JF3-402
 
503-712-7847
503-701-2775 (cell)
503-712-7334 Maureen Wolf, Admin. Ass't.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of [email-masked]
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 9:10 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Ipr-wg Digest, Vol 8, Issue 22

Send Ipr-wg mailing list submissions to
	[email-masked]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	[email-masked]

You can reach the person managing the list at
	[email-masked]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Ipr-wg digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Disclosure forms - modified version (Scott W Brim)
   2. Re: Disclosure forms - modified version (Harald Tveit Alvestrand)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:07:08 -0500
From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Disclosure forms - modified version
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

A question on the proposed new disclosure form.

If we now have, as the last option: "See Text Box Below for Licensing 
Declaration", then do we still need "Unwilling to Commit to the 
Provisions of a), b), or c) Above."?

... especially because you don't really need to select any of the
options?

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:22:11 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Disclosure forms - modified version
To: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed

--On fredag, januar 21, 2005 10:07:08 -0500 Scott W Brim
<[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> A question on the proposed new disclosure form.
>
> If we now have, as the last option: "See Text Box Below for Licensing
> Declaration", then do we still need "Unwilling to Commit to the
> Provisions of a), b), or c) Above."?
>
> ... especially because you don't really need to select any of the
options?

I think it's convenient to have under some circumstances ("yes, we 
acknowledge that we have this IPR, but we are really in a mess with 
deciding what to do about it, and we don't want to say anything else").

It doesn't do any harm, I think - and it saves having to discuss with
those 
(if any) who think they may want to use it later.....

------------------------------

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

End of Ipr-wg Digest, Vol 8, Issue 22
*************************************

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

---

From: "George T. Willingmyre" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:22:15 -0500

Ed, I had previously made a similar suggestion but from a  "process" point
of view.

It is good standards development process in designing forms whose purpose is
to help meet some procedural requirement to  limit the data elements in  the
forms to only those elements that are found in the original requirement.
When there is general consensus that some additional information might be
helpful in some way or another, then the form ought to have some caution
that the information request is optional and not a requirement of the
underlying procedure.  Of course there is always the option to change the
underlying the process requirement to require the information and then the
form could be consistent with the new requirement.

Here is the approach taken by IEEE where the template for a "letter of
assurance" is itself entirely voluntary but the data elements track point by
point to the underlying procedure.  When the drafters of the template came
to a decision to add a voluntary disclosure for specific patent information
they added the following caution

"[Note: Completion of the following section is optional. Nothing in this
Letter of Assurance shall be interpreted as giving rise to a duty to conduct
a patent search.]"

see  http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/loa.pdf

George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
GTW Associates
1012 Parrs Ridge Drive
Spencerville, MD 20868
301 421 4138 facsimile 301 421 0977
www.gtwassociates.com