Subject: RE: Comments on draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-01.txt

From: "Malin Gullstrand (EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:19:33 +0100

>However, unasserted claims are not relevant to the IETF, whether they
>are protected or not.  The IETF cannot take into account claims that
>might be made at some future time.

This is great news. I hope we can all agree on this? 
/Malin

Malin Gullstrand, M. Sc. E. E.
Licensing Manager, Research Patents
IPR & Licensing; Ericsson AB
Phone: +46 8 719 94 85
Mobile: +46 70 593 5921

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott W Brim [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: den 26 februari 2003 16:24
To: Malin Gullstrand (EAB)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-01.txt

On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 04:05:13PM +0100, Malin Gullstrand (EAB) allegedly
wrote:
> As for me personally, the "claim" approach is fine, but there's a
> snag: 
> 
> You can add claims later on, according to both US and EP law, as long
> as the subject matter is featured in some detail in the priority
> application, e.g. in the decription, figures, or elsewhere. Hence you
> have "protection" from your priority date for something that you might
> not "claim" until later on. You can even hand in a provisional
> application in complete destitute of anything similar to a claim. 

However, unasserted claims are not relevant to the IETF, whether they
are protected or not.  The IETF cannot take into account claims that
might be made at some future time.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:34:58 -0500

> This is great news. I hope we can all agree on this? 

Unless the lawyers point out some flaw in the logic.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:52:51 -0800

> >might be made at some future time.

This is precisely why a licensing commitment, rather than disclosure, is
the only effective way to protect IETF standards.  

/Larry

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:11:24 -0500

> > >However, unasserted claims are not relevant to the IETF, whether they are
> > >protected or not.  The IETF cannot take into account claims that might be
> > >made at some future time.
> 

There is no effective way to protect IETF standards.  About the best we can do
is to discourage IETF participants from using IETF as a means to promote use
of encumbered technology, and to notify potential implementors of any IPR
which would hinder free implementation of IETF standards.

Keith