Subject: Are IPR disclosures necessarily transitive?

From: Vincent Roca <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 13:19:39 +0100

Hello,

Here is the situation:
- Document A has been subject to some IPR disclosure by company C.
- Another document, B, applies a **subset** of the techniques described
  in A to a different context. Therefore B references A and explains
  what is considered or not from A.
- C is aware of both A and B and participates to the WG.

The point I'd like to clarify is the following:
1- does C need to fill a new IPR disclosure for B,
2- or can C avoid filling a new IPR disclosure since one has already
   been filled for A?

In other terms, is there some kind of "IPR disclosure transitivity"
in this case?

I failed to find some guidance in RFC3979 hence my question.
Thanks in advance for your help in clarifying this point.

Cheers,

   Vincent

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 08:29:35 -0500

For clarity, it is desirable for Company C to enter IPR statements for both documents.  This way, there is an IPR statement associated with both Last Calls.

Russ

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 09:04:46 -0500

> For clarity, it is desirable for Company C to enter IPR statements for both documents.  This way, there is an IPR statement associated with both Last Calls.

The other possibility is that a subset is not actually subject to the
same IPR because it leaves out the bit that was covered by the patent.
 It's good to clarify which is the case by applying a new IPR
declaration to each document.

My personal view as a non-lawyer,

Ted

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

---

From: "Polk, William T." <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 09:26:39 -0500

I think it depends upon the IPR statement, and how closely it was tied to Document A.  I seem to recall a few IPR disclosures that were written to apply to any IETF specifications.  If the IPR statement is tied explicitly to Document A, I don't think it matters whether Document B requires a subset of the technology or not. 

Of course, I am not a lawyer and my employer gives me a different perspective on IPR than some others may have...

Tim

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ted Hardie [[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 9:04 AM
To: Russ Housley
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Are IPR disclosures necessarily transitive?

Ted

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 12:39:59 -0500

On 11/06/12 09:26, Polk, William T. allegedly wrote:
> I think it depends upon the IPR statement, and how closely it was
> tied to Document A.  I seem to recall a few IPR disclosures that were
> written to apply to any IETF specifications.  

6.4.3.  The requirement for an IPR disclosure is not satisfied by the
   submission of a blanket statement of possible IPR on every
   Contribution.  This is the case because the aim of the disclosure
   requirement is to provide information about specific IPR against
   specific technology under discussion in the IETF.  The requirement is
   also not satisfied by a blanket statement of willingness to license
   all potential 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: Vincent Roca <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 20:48:38 +0100

You're right Tim, so let's clarify. Do you agree if I'm saying
(I think it's in line with what Ted said this morning):

- the only situation where C would issue the same IPR
  disclosure for B than C did for A, is when each patent
  of the initial IPR disclosure is either intimately linked
  to A or is motivated by techniques of A that are included
  in the subset of A chosen by B.

- in all other cases, C would either issue a different
  IPR disclosure for B or perhaps would not fill any
  IPR disclosure at all.

Then, can we define recommendations so that, at the
end, a user of B knows **simply and objectively**
what is the exact IPR situation WRT the use of B
(i.e. to be in the same situation as if he wants to use A).

This is what I'm looking for and RFC3979 does not
consider this situation, unless I've missed something.

Otherwise Russ provided a motivation for having C
issuing a new IPR disclosure that is "IESG oriented".
I agree, it does make sense, but it's complementary.

Cheers,

    Vincent

---

From: Steven Bellovin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 16:07:36 -0500

> My personal view as a non-lawyer,

It's worse than that -- the IPR disclosure's license terms could have 
been specific to the earlier document, in which case they certainly
don't apply, and a new disclosure is needed.

Apart from that, note that https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/
provides fields for search on I-D name or RFC number.  The old disclosure
certainly won't catch that. 

		--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb