Subject: Re: Proposal for slight edit to section 6.2.1 of draft-ietf-ipr-t echn ology-rights-09.txt

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 13:27:27 -0400

> If we disclose some IP, and in the future the spec changes substantially, it
> doesn't mean that the disclosure was _wrong_, but it could mean that it is
> no longer relevant. Based on what THIS DOCUMENT says, we are encouraged to
> modify our disclosures if that happens. Doing that on a regular basis costs
> time and money, and argues for not disclosing until the specification is
> stable.

perhaps, but IETF's interests are in having the IPR disclosed before it makes
a substantial investment in it.  by the time the specification is stable,
that's way too late - unless of course the IPR is licensed under very liberal terms.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Powers Chuck-rxcp20 <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 08:57:48 -0700

Keith Moore wrote:
> 
> why would you ever be requested to refine or withdraw a disclosure?
> if you disclose IPR, it's disclosed.  you shouldn't refine it unless
> your first disclosure was somehow incorrect.   of course you can
> offer new licenses at any time, assuming you don't delegate that
> power exclusively to someone else.  but disclosure and license are
> different things.

Simple: because the remainder of the paragraph we are discussing says exactly that:

"An IPR discloser is requested to withdraw a previous disclosure if a revised Contribution negates the previous IPR disclosure, or to amend a previous disclosure if a revised Contribution substantially alters the previous disclosure"

If we disclose some IP, and in the future the spec changes substantially, it doesn't mean that the disclosure was _wrong_, but it could mean that it is no longer relevant. Based on what THIS DOCUMENT says, we are encouraged to modify our disclosures if that happens. Doing that on a regular basis costs time and money, and argues for not disclosing until the specification is stable.

regards,

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 12:58 AM
> To: Powers Chuck-rxcp20
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Proposal for slight edit to section 6.2.1 of
> draft-ietf-ipr-t echn ology-rights-09.txt
> 
> 
> > Speaking for my employer, we would prefer to not make multiple IP
> > disclosures which might later prove to be unnecessary, 
> especially if we may
> > then be requested to refine or withdraw those disclosures 
> if/when that
> > occurs.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 14:35:24 -0700

Chuck the problems in withholding known changes to the IP release landscape
are that "making the specification stable" is the engineering work that is
to happen here in the IETF and if the IP issues are undisclosed until such
time as the "stabilized IP" is clearly defined then what recourse do the
rest of us that contributed have other than suing the IETF or the IP owner.

You have said it costs the discloser to make these disclosures- I am sorry
but I don't see that, so can you paint a picture for me of how? i.e. -- what
are the exact costs in making this type of disclosure?

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Powers Chuck-rxcp20" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Keith Moore'" <[email-masked]>; "Powers Chuck-rxcp20"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 8:57 AM
Subject: RE: Proposal for slight edit to section 6.2.1 of draft-ietf-ipr-t
echn ology-rights-09.txt

> "An IPR discloser is requested to withdraw a previous disclosure if a
revised Contribution negates the previous IPR disclosure, or to amend a
previous disclosure if a revised Contribution substantially alters the
previous disclosure"
>
> If we disclose some IP, and in the future the spec changes substantially,
it doesn't mean that the disclosure was _wrong_, but it could mean that it
is no longer relevant. Based on what THIS DOCUMENT says, we are encouraged
to modify our disclosures if that happens. Doing that on a regular basis
costs time and money, and argues for not disclosing until the specification
is stable.