Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipr-template-05.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 07:52:50 -0400

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Intellectual Property Rights Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: A Template for IETF Patent Disclosures and Licensing 
                          Declarations
	Author(s)	: V. See
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ipr-template-05.txt
	Pages		: 8
	Date		: 2003-6-17
	
This document describes a template for IETF patent disclosures and 
licensing declarations. The optional use of this template is meant to
simplify the process of such disclosures and licensing declarations 
and to assist disclosers in providing the necessary information to 
meet the obligations documented in RFC XXXX [ii].

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-template-05.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-ipr-template-05.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipr-template-05.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 06:42:00 -0700

After reading the new disclosure template document "end to end" I have two
concerns,

    1)    That a document this detailed means that there is a responsibility
to create and maintain accurate information as to the patent licensing, and
I see this as a synopsis of the patent searches one would have to do anyway
so I am not in favor of creating yet-another-DB of data to maintain here
with the "no constituency" based IETF we have today...

    2)    It is inappropriate that the Informational and Release Drafts are
the same document. It is totally reasonable for anyone who has interest to
post informational notices to the IPR working groups collection of official
documents as to their concerns regarding IP's. The current model ONLY allows
for IP Owners to make declarations and that is probably a shortsighted
doing...

    #1 is an issue that this WG likely cannot fix and it needs to understand
that this is about law and process and not about technological method. So...

    And #2 is pretty much a "duh" kind of realization... so do with it what
you will.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <IETF-Announce:>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 4:52 AM
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipr-template-05.txt

> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the

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

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:47:38 -0400

On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 06:42:00AM -0700, todd glassey allegedly wrote:
> After reading the new disclosure template document "end to end" I have
> two concerns,
> 
>     1)    That a document this detailed means that there is a
>     responsibility to create and maintain accurate information as to
>     the patent licensing, and I see this as a synopsis of the patent
>     searches one would have to do anyway so I am not in favor of
>     creating yet-another-DB of data to maintain here with the "no
>     constituency" based IETF we have today...

There is no requirement that the IETF maintain any sort of database, nor
is there any requirement that the IETF keep anything accurate.  IETF IPR
information is based purely on whatever disclosures are submitted.  The
minimum is that we maintain disclosures in their raw form, as we do now.
Personally, I think a database would be nice, and that maintaining it
would not, but all of that is an IETF administrative decision, not
required by the IPR policy.

>     2)    It is inappropriate that the Informational and Release
>     Drafts are the same document. It is totally reasonable for anyone
>     who has interest to post informational notices to the IPR working
>     groups collection of official documents as to their concerns
>     regarding IP's. The current model ONLY allows for IP Owners to
>     make declarations and that is probably a shortsighted doing...

See the drafts about third-party disclosure.  The template is only for
first-party disclosure.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 20:02:48 -0700

So then I could intentionally publish disinformation in the IP statement.
Sorry Scott - there is a fiduciary responsibility to do the same type of
diligence that anyone else would have to do in the industry if you open the
can of worms at all and that's the problem.

You folks seem to want to engineer another IETF solution and that is not
what this is about. This is about developing legal process for the IETF and
its not something that should be voted on like this IMHO.

What needs to happen is that the Attorney's need to design a framework with
specific sets of legal deliverables in the process and then we can flesh it
out. But fleshing it out and then surgically "trying to make the solution
work" is lame.

Todd