Subject: Re: IPR for Standards Track only???

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 09:32:26 -0400 (EDT)

> Do you have any examples for mailing
> list or face to face statements?

I do not, though some might have morphed into disclosures about IDs
if the statement got incorporated into an ID

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 13:59:59 +0200

> if the statement got incorporated into an ID

Exactly. Having thought about this a bit more, I think it is entirely
reasonable to have the "must disclose" for all contributions that are
published as I-Ds. The reason for that is that companies that have strict
lawyering of IPR questions also have formal procedures for allowing
their employees to publish documents. So requiring IPR disclosures
related to I-Ds (whether or not they are formally on the standards track)
is not unduly onerous.

The "must" that continues to bother me is for ideas that get mentioned
in casual emails or at the microphone. I have no problem at all with
a "should." But let me construct an example why this seems very onerous
as a "must."

In the avian WG, I step up to the microphone and say "Why don't we code
the zero bits on the left leg, and the one bits on the right leg?" After
a few minutes discussion, the WG decides this is silly, and drops it.
As I leave the room, a colleague says to me "By the way, I have a patent
on that idea, even though it's dumb." 

As I read draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-07.txt, I now *must* make
a formal IPR disclosure. That is what I object to.

    Brian

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 08:11:52 -0400 (EDT)

> in casual emails or at the microphone.

it is not unknown at all for someone to speak at the microphone about
an idea and say parentetically that their company has a patent or
patent application on the idea

I do agree that havingto have someone jump up to say that they have IPR
that covers the dumb idea the last speaker mentioned is not all that
useful

send text to show the difference

scott

---

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 13:59:59 +0200

Brian

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 08:43:00 -0400

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 01:59:59PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter allegedly
wrote:
> In the avian WG, I step up to the microphone and say "Why don't we
> code the zero bits on the left leg, and the one bits on the right
> leg?" After a few minutes discussion, the WG decides this is silly,
> and drops it.  As I leave the room, a colleague says to me "By the
> way, I have a patent on that idea, even though it's dumb." 
> 
> As I read draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-07.txt, I now *must* make a
> formal IPR disclosure. That is what I object to.

Personally, I wouldn't.  I would drop it, and I would only put out a
disclosure if I later discovered that someone was taking the idea
seriously, or if I published something.  I think the basic principle is
to strive for openness and honesty but not to spam people just to cover
your rear, or to advertise that you're a cool idea factory.  It's not
good for the IETF to have a lot of non-constructive noise due to
procedural requirements.

So in technology-rights I would like to distinguish "significant
discourse" on a subject.  A topic which is discussed for more than 15
minutes?  An email thread which has more than 5 messages on it?  Mumble.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 15:50:57 +0200

In section 6.1.1 we have

>    This requirement specifically includes Contributions that are made by
>    any means including electronic or spoken comments.  

How about changing this to:

   This requirement specifically includes Contributions that are made by
   any means including electronic or spoken comments, unless the latter
   are rejected from consideration before a disclosure could reasonably
   be submitted.

and I think the same sentence is needed in 6.1.2. This seems objective
to me (i.e. if an idea gets thrown out in less time than it takes
to prepare a disclosure, the disclosure isn't required.)

   Brian

Scott Bradner wrote:
> >From [email-masked]  Tue Jun 10 08:04:31 2003
> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 13:59:59 +0200
> From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
> Organization: IBM
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
> X-Accept-Language: en,fr,de
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Onerous requirement [Re: IPR for Standards Track only???]
> References: <[email-masked]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Sender: [email-masked]
> Errors-To: [email-masked]
> X-BeenThere: [email-masked]
> X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
> Precedence: bulk
> List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>,
>         <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=unsubscribe>
> List-Id: IPR-WG <ipr-wg.ietf.org>
> List-Post: <mailto:[email-masked]>
> List-Help: <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=help>
> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>,
>         <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=subscribe>
> 
> Scott Bradner wrote:
> >

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:54:00 -0400 (EDT)

sounds good to me

Scott

---

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 15:50:57 +0200

In section 6.1.1 we have

   Brian

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 08:54:12 -0700

Scott/Pekka  - I want to raise the questions of Note-Well and how it
actually works - for instance, how do you deal with "Hear-Say" type
disclosures to the IPR process??
---
What I am concerned with is the concept of taking informed notice of
something and then being able to dismiss it as not being from a competent
source.

Say if I hear someone at my company and they**  talking about that there are
patents in some areas, do I have a fiduciary requirement to disclose this,
and what does the IETF do to me for not disclosing it. How about if I am out
at dinner with some friends who are patent attorneys and we are talking
about IP issues with any IETF  effort, and they point things out to me, do I
then have a fiduciary responsibility to disclose those things...

** Say these IP revelations are a Janitor - is this viable hear say?
    How about if they are a Lawyer?
    or a Patent Holder?
    or the Project Manager?

And what will our processes to date do to the initiative if the party
sponsoring and submitting the materials doesn't play by the rules? - For
instance, how would the IETF even know?  I believe that the answer is
"nothing, and it wouldn't", and I think that this is a failing in the
process.

The only possible solution I see to this dilemma  is a filing requirements
be added to the escalation of an RFC to Proposed Standard (PS) which
mandates that any PS initiative MUST have an IPR disclosure on file and a
formal release as well.

What I would suggest that the TEMPLATE for the IPR also contain a statement
assuring the IETF that the document submitted is in what-ever compliance
level with RFC2026's IP disclosure requirements, and that a formal release
is granted to the IETF to publish this as a proposed global standard.

In fact what does the IETF do to any effort that is found to have had
hanky-panky involved in its escalation to a standard?

The other issue is the IPR website and the complexity of finding anything in
it. I suggest that it needs to be searchable as do the actual declarations
on file as well. Otherwise the site as it is now is just lip service in my
opinion

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Bradner" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: Onerous requirement [Re: IPR for Standards Track only???]

> sounds good to me
>
> Scott
>
> ---
> From [email-masked]  Tue Jun 10 09:52:39 2003
> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 15:50:57 +0200
> Subject: Re: Onerous requirement [Re: IPR for Standards Track only???]
> References: <[email-masked]>

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:26:34 -0400

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 03:50:57PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter allegedly
wrote:
> In section 6.1.1 we have
> 
> >    This requirement specifically includes Contributions that are
> >    made by any means including electronic or spoken comments.  
> 
>    This requirement specifically includes Contributions that are made
>    by any means including electronic or spoken comments, unless the
>    latter are rejected from consideration before a disclosure could
>    reasonably be submitted.
> 
> to me (i.e. if an idea gets thrown out in less time than it takes to
> prepare a disclosure, the disclosure isn't required.)
> 
>    Brian

We want to 

  - avoid unnecessary burdens on both participants and IPR holders.  The
    goal is lean, mean, efficient production of good technology.

  - ensure that if anyone is influencing the standardization process
    while (personally and reasonably) knowing of related IPR, that it
    gets disclosed.

It's true that one can influence the standardization process a lot
through non-document "contributions".  On the other hand, several
vendors have said that they feel daunted by having to keep track of
disclosures possibly needed for every oral statement that someone might
make.  Stepping back for a minute, that requirement isn't really what
we're after -- we only have it, reluctantly, because it's the only way
we know to meet the above requirements.

I suggest that disclosing IPR related to such non-document
"contributions" can be allowed to wait until the draft is submitted.  If
a "contribution" never bears fruit in a document, then it doesn't matter
who has the IPR on it.  However, we don't want anyone to be able to send
a lot of mail on a subject until a draft comes out, and then go mum, and
not have to disclose.  So, at the time the draft comes out, people who
would have to disclose under the current proposed policy would still
have to do so -- the chickens would come home to roost.  But the
document would be the trigger.  

Functionally it's exactly the same as if the discloser had submitted a
draft up front.  It's early enough in the process -- at the time of
submission -- that the WG isn't completely derailed by late disclosure.
Also, I suspect this is how a lot of disclosures are handled anyway.
People float ideas and see if they get taken up, and they don't disclose
unless and until that happens.

So whether Brian's amendment gets incorporated or not, I suggest an
amendment to 6.2.1 (Timing of Disclosure Under 6.1.1).  It's pretty
simple, just change "made":

  Old:

     The Contributor or his or her employer or sponsor (if any) or other
     organization holding the rights to IPR, must submit an IPR
     disclosure as soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is
     made unless there is already an IETF IPR disclosure by such
     person(s) on file that relates to the Contribution.  

  New:

     The Contributor or his or her employer or sponsor (if any) or other
     organization holding the rights to IPR, must submit an IPR
     disclosure as soon as reasonably possible after the Contribution is
     incorporated into a submission to be published as an Internet Draft
     or RFC, unless there is already an IETF IPR disclosure by such
     person(s) on file that relates to the Contribution.  

Finally, right now all the rewards and punishments go to the IPR holder,
not the participant who is responsible for the disclosure.  Right now
there is no consistency in what happens to an individual who does not
disclose IPR.  In the few cases I know of (this doesn't happen, or
doesn't get detected, very often in the IETF), some have even gone on to
be considered respected leaders.  It would be nice if there were some
kind of feedback for people who don't disclose.  I'm told that some
people are hesitant to disclose IPR because it makes them feel ashamed
in the working group.  It's hard to provide a carrot for disclosure.
Can we provide some kind of stick?  Is there an allowed way to say, for
example, that if someone doesn't disclose they are not allowed to submit
any more WG drafts for some period of time, something like that?

Thanks ... Scott (Brim)

---

From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 19:02:09 -0700

I'm confused.  Are you documenting current procedure or inventing new
procedure?  Or does the answer to that depend on whom you ask or who's
doing the asking?  I just want to be ready to start to comment when you
finally get around to thinking up new procedures to cure what ails IETF.
/Larry Rosen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Scott W Brim
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 6:27 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> It's true that one can influence the standardization process 
> a lot through non-document "contributions".  On the other 
> hand, several vendors have said that they feel daunted by 
> having to keep track of disclosures possibly needed for every 
> oral statement that someone might make.  Stepping back for a 
> minute, that requirement isn't really what we're after -- we 
> only have it, reluctantly, because it's the only way we know 
> to meet the above requirements.
> 
> "contributions" can be allowed to wait until the draft is 
> submitted.  If a "contribution" never bears fruit in a 
> document, then it doesn't matter who has the IPR on it.  
> However, we don't want anyone to be able to send a lot of 
> mail on a subject until a draft comes out, and then go mum, 
> and not have to disclose.  So, at the time the draft comes 
> out, people who would have to disclose under the current 
> proposed policy would still have to do so -- the chickens 
> would come home to roost.  But the document would be the trigger.  
> 
> Functionally it's exactly the same as if the discloser had 
> submitted a draft up front.  It's early enough in the process 
> -- at the time of submission -- that the WG isn't completely 
> derailed by late disclosure. Also, I suspect this is how a 
> lot of disclosures are handled anyway. People float ideas and 
> see if they get taken up, and they don't disclose unless and 
> until that happens.
> 
> So whether Brian's amendment gets incorporated or not, I 
> suggest an amendment to 6.2.1 (Timing of Disclosure Under 
> 6.1.1).  It's pretty simple, just change "made":
> 
>   Old:
> 
> Finally, right now all the rewards and punishments go to the 
> IPR holder, not the participant who is responsible for the 
> disclosure.  Right now there is no consistency in what 
> happens to an individual who does not disclose IPR.  In the 
> few cases I know of (this doesn't happen, or doesn't get 
> detected, very often in the IETF), some have even gone on to 
> be considered respected leaders.  It would be nice if there 
> were some kind of feedback for people who don't disclose.  
> I'm told that some people are hesitant to disclose IPR 
> because it makes them feel ashamed in the working group.  
> It's hard to provide a carrot for disclosure. Can we provide 
> some kind of stick?  Is there an allowed way to say, for 
> example, that if someone doesn't disclose they are not 
> allowed to submit any more WG drafts for some period of time, 
> something like that?
> 
> Thanks ... Scott (Brim)

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 10:57:40 +0200

Scott Brim,

I think your change plus mine add up to an accurate
description of today's de facto practice (i.e the running
code based on 2026 plus the Note Well).

  Brian

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 03:57:35 -0700

Hey Brian - I want to illustrate a problem with all IETF submissions
processes for any documents including IPR declarations. Note the term
"allegedly" in your own email response below...

That's the whole problem. The entirety of the IETF's submission processes
coined in one word - "Allegedly"... which is why an EMail based declaration
process is not reliable.

Todd

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 07:45:00 -0400

> finally get around to thinking up new procedures to cure what ails IETF.

We're trying to get the language to describe current procedure done
right.  
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg