Subject: Generic IPR Disclosures

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 11:46:36 -0700

Hello,

RFC 3979 states that:

  "The disclosure must list the numbers of any issued patents or
   published patent applications or indicate that the claim is based on
   unpublished patent applications."

and

   "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 as long as any other terms
    and conditions are disclosed in the IPR disclosure statement."

 From what I understand the second (quoted) paragraph is for Generic 
IPR Disclosures.  Is that correct?

There is also the following:

   "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"

Does that include Generic IPR Disclosures?

Regards,
-sm

---

From: "Bradner, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 19:05:50 +0000

On May 8, 2014, at 2:46 PM, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:

>   and conditions are disclosed in the IPR disclosure statement.”
> 
> From what I understand the second (quoted) paragraph is for Generic IPR Disclosures.  Is that correct?

it does relate to generic IPR disclosures but generic IPR disclosures avoid the requirement
for individual per-document disclosures  only if the generic disclosure offers a royalty-free license for the IPR

> Does that include Generic IPR Disclosures?

not sure what is being asked here

Scott

> 
> Regards,
> -sm
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 12:45:30 -0700

Hi Scott,
>not sure what is being asked here

Sorry about that.  I'll quote Section 6.1.3 of RFC 3979:

   "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."

Is a person (as described in Section 6.1.3) encouraged to make a 
disclosure under Section 6.4.3 of RFC 3979?

 From what I gathered it would not be of much use as the person (as 
described in Section 6.1.3) would be stating his or her willingness 
to license IPR that he or she does not own directly or indirectly.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 22:47:18 -0400

--On Thursday, 08 May, 2014 12:45 -0700 SM <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>...
>  From what I gathered it would not be of much use as the
> person (as described in Section 6.1.3) would be stating his or
> her willingness to license IPR that he or she does not own
> directly or indirectly.

Are you saying anything different from "a third party disclosure
may identify IPR related to a particular specification but,
obviously and logically, cannot make a binding statement about
licensing terms."?

    john

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 22:13:48 -0700

Hi John,
>obviously and logically, cannot make a binding statement about

No.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: TGLASSEY <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 00:42:10 -0700

Third parties can make binding statements about IPR such as "You dont 
own it **, we own it through sublicensing  and we are not authorizing 
you to use, convey or design into any standards process"

** pertaining to any conveyance made by anyone.

Todd
On 5/8/2014 10:13 PM, SM wrote:
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4577 / Virus Database: 3931/7462 - Release Date: 05/08/14
>
>

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

Personal Email - Disclaimers Apply

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 06:37:00 -0400

--On Thursday, 08 May, 2014 22:13 -0700 SM <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>> Are you saying anything different from "a third party
>> disclosure may identify IPR related to a particular
>> specification but, obviously and logically, cannot make a
>> binding statement about licensing terms."?
> 
> No.

Then, given the "obviously and logically" part, why are we
having  this discussion?  Isn't it, at most, just and editorial
suggestion that revisions of the IPR spec make that point
explicitly?

   john

---

From: TGLASSEY <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 08:13:23 -0700

Its perfect its the four of us on this one...

Gentlemen if I may,
Here is the issue - there is this US Sup.Ct. Case called Gellman which 
set very strong standards for the conveyance of IP and made explicit 
requirements therein for patent (and trade secret issues). This was in 
California complicated by the Ninth Circuit filing in a CUTSA complaint 
that all trade secret matters would be addressed as such including 
patent issues.

Why this is important to the IETF is it violates Trade Secret Management 
Practices by its one-way licensing and as such it is the control of 
trade secret inclusions in IETF IP that should happen.

Todd

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

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 08:11:19 -0700

Hi John,
>suggestion that revisions of the IPR spec make that point

I was not arguing for an editorial change to the IPR document.  I 
received a query about whether an IPR disclosure should be filed for 
RFC 7208 (the case is similar to 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1698/ ).  I thought that it was 
better to ask in case my logic was faulty.

Regards,
-sm