Subject: last call -- again

From: Steve Bellovin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 20:32:27 -0400

Let's try that again, this time with the document names....

The authors of these three documents think they're done.  Rob and I 
agree.  Any last objections?  Please send them to the list on or before 
8 July.

draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-05.txt
draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-06.txt
raft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-10.txt

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)

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

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 20:45:52 -0500

I was composing a private note to Scott Brim when this arrived,
so maybe it SHOULD go to the list? But I wanted to ask about
"defensive patents" in wg-guidelines...

NEMO is doing the "gee, there's probably IPR on our specification"
discussion (see
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/nemo/current/msg00069.html
for the thread), and one point that's being discussed is "we're told
that a patent-holder views its patents as defensive, and will play fair".

Defensive patents are mentioned in 4.6 (IDR), but the topic isn't
mentioned explicitly in section 5. Is there anything we can say in
the draft that would provide guidance in this situation, which I assume
is fairly common and becoming more so? Is licensing the only thing
for us to keep in mind?

Spencer Dawkins

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 06:25:21 -0400

> is fairly common and becoming more so? Is licensing the only thing

It's mentioned in 5.6 as well, with reciprocity (look for "defensive"),
but just to let people know that such things exist.  Most of the time it
seems to go with pretty good licensing terms, but not necessarily, so I
didn't want to mislead people.  I was trying to keep the draft from
giving legal advice.  I wanted to stick to giving advice on how to how
to understand the situation enough that you knew what kind of legal
advice to ask for, and there still isn't much you can say with
confidence here.

If you have suggestions for elaborating what's said there in 5.6, I'm
listening.  I suppose I could say that reciprocity and defensive
suspension could possibly be good signs, since restrictions like these
imply that the IPR holder is offering terms which it feels are risky to
it.  

Personally I think knowing something about the IPR holder's licensing
history counts for more than reciprocity or defensive suspension.  If
you see these, look at history.

.swb

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 06:45:12 -0700

Scott - Is there a formal workflow for how the IPR process is supposed to
"work properly"...

Todd Glassey

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:03:27 -0400

On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 06:45:12AM -0700, todd glassey allegedly wrote:
> Scott - Is there a formal workflow for how the IPR process is supposed
> to "work properly"...

With regard to IPR disclosure, there is.  See the Bradner drafts.

Because working groups have to be able to handle a disclosure at any
point as a technology progresses toward standardization, because
disclosure of licensing terms is not required, and because IPR is just
one criteria among many that a WG takes into account, there is no
deterministic process for evaluating IPR in a working group.  All you
can say is "evaluate IPR issues" at various times.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 07:16:16 -0700

Steve - I want to point out that what your are crafting here DOES form a
contract with the people that submit their materials under these terms. With
that said, I do not believe that these are best kept as three separate
documents, because it will be more difficult to manage the workflows and
contingency, as well as to demonstrating that anyone could have possibly
made anything close to a competent Informed Consent decision here.

In fact BEFORE anyone can submit anything there needs to be a document on
file that shows that they understand the process. That they HAVE ALREADY
READ and UNDERSTAND and moreover that they AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
of the publication of their works and to the implied licensing therein.

This is VERY VERY serious contract law here, and it needs to be done right.

T.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 07:17:35 -0700

Scott - that was my point.

> ... and because IPR is just
> deterministic process for evaluating IPR in a working group. 

Todd