Subject: Part 2 - comments/feedback on Bradner "technology-rights-01" draft

From: "Valerie See" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:28:55 -0800

Part 2 of my (perhaps over long) comments on Scott's "technology-rights-
01" draft:

6. Section 6.4 What must be in a disclosure - I saw Scott Brim's 
comments on this section and I think that his comments definitely help, 
but I wanted to follow on with some things that I believe might help 
clarify this even more. (Also - Scott Bradner had asked if we should put

up a disclosure template - I would like to see this as I think it would 
really help simplify the process for contributors and disclosers. I've 
ttached a draft of what that might look like.) 

To the clarifications of this section, I'd like to suggest the following
text: 
"For issued/granted patents and published pending patent applications, 
disclosure of the following is required: 1) the registration numbers of
issued 
patents, and file numbers of published patent applications, and 2) the
date(s) 
the patents/applications were granted or applied for. In the case of
unpublished 
patent applications, since they are confidential, a party is only
required to 
disclose the existence of the application, not the precise content of
the 
application until it is published. However, if the patent holder
declares 
ts unwillingness to license a necessary patent claim, then the patent
holder 
must also identify the portions of the IETF Standard to which such
patent 
claim relates.  Also, once an unpublished patent application is
published, 
the patent holder must disclose the additional details referenced above
for 
published applications." 

The reason I would suggest this is that it presents clarifications on
how to 
deal with unpublished applications - which seem to be a continuing point
of confusion - 
and it also balances the need for simplicity in disclosure with the WG's
need for 
information in the case where a patent holder has indicated an
unwillingness to license. 
In this case, it does seem reasonable to request what portions of the
document would 
be impacted (versus the broader case that Scott Brim had earlier also
argued against, 
that of pointing to sections of the document affected by licensable
claims). 

On the template - here is a draft of one approach:

Proposed Boilerplate for Patent Disclosure / Licensing Declaration
.....................................

This document is an IETF Patent Disclosure and Licensing Declaration 
Form and is submitted to inform the IETF of patent information for all 
IETF documents, and licensing information regarding IETF standards-track

documents as required by the provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026 and 
subject to the clarifications of <<insert reference to Scott Bradner 
I-D or RFC>>. No actual license is implied by submission of this 
document.

I. Patent Holder/Organization ("Patent Holder")

Legal Name: ____________________________________________________________

II. Patent Holder's Contact for License Application

Name: __________________________________________________________________

Department: ____________________________________________________________

Address: _______________________________________________________________

         _______________________________________________________________

Telephone: _____________________________________________________________

Fax: ___________________________________________________________________

Email: _________________________________________________________________

III. IETF Document

Title: _________________________________________________________________

RFC Number or I-D Tag: _________________________________________________

Other Designations: ____________________________________________________

IV. Disclosure of "Patent Claims" (i.e., patent claims that the Patent
Holder 
believes would be necessary to implement the technology required by the
above 
IETF Document)

A. Patent Claims contained in an issued patent or published pending 
patent application:

Registration number(s) or application/file numbers(s): ________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Date(s) granted or applied for: _______________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

B. Are the Patent Claims contained in an unpublished pending patent 
application?

Select one:  Yes _________  No _________

If "Yes" is selected, please check here to acknowledge that the Patent 
Holder is obligated to file a supplement to this form once the 
referenced patent application is published, which provides the 
additional information listed above under (IV)(A).     _______

C. For IETF Standards, Proposed Standards, or Draft Standards: If the 
Patent Holder selects Licensing Option 5 below (Unwilling to 
License), then it must identify here the portion(s) of the IETF 
Standard to which its asserted Patent Claim(s) relate(s):

_______________________________________________________________________

V. Licensing Declaration for IETF Standards, Proposed Standards, or 
Draft Standards:

The Patent Holder states that its position with respect to licensing
the Patent Claim(s) disclosed above to implementers of the IETF 
Standard is as follows (select one option only):

____  Licensing Declaration to be Provided Later (implies a willingness
      to license in some form to all implementers; otherwise, 
      "Unwilling to License to All Implementers" must be selected)

____  No License Required for Implementers

____  Fair (i.e. Reasonable) and Non-Discriminatory License to All 
      Implementers Without Any Royalty or Fee

_____ Fair (i.e. Reasonable) and Non-Discriminatory License to All 
      Implementers with Possible Royalty/Fee

_____ Unwilling to License to All Implementers
.....................................

*	*	* 	End of Boilerplate	*	*	*

Here is a summary of the licensing commitment options in the piece of 
boilerplate proposed above; should the boilerplate idea be accepted, 
this language might be used as the definitions of terms within the I-D:

a) Licensing Declaration to be Provided Later (implies a willingness to 
license in some form to all implementers): The patent holder is willing 
to license its technology in some form to all implementers but wants to 
defer the declaration of its licensing type until a later point in time
(or when asked for this information by the IESG). This option may not be
selected if the patent holder is unwilling to license its technology.

b) No License Required for Implementers: The patent holder does not 
require implementers of the IETF Standard to sign any license to use the
technology in their implementations. 
 
c) Fair (i.e. Reasonable) and Non-Discriminatory License to All 
Implementers Without Any Royalty or Fees: The patent holder offers to 
license the technology to all implementers of the IETF Standard under 
fair (reasonable) and non-discriminatory terms, with no royalty or other

fees. 
 
d) Fair (i.e. Reasonable) and Non-Discriminatory License to All 
Implementers with Possible Royalty/Fee: The patent holder offers to 
license the technology to all implementers of the IETF Standard under 
fair (reasonable) and non-discriminatory terms (which may include a 
royalty/fee).
 
e) Unwilling to License to All Implementers:  The patent holder refuses
to license the technology to all implementers of the IETF Standard. 

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:07:07 +0100

Speaking for myself only, I think this is asking for an
unreasonable amount of precision, and I don't think you will
get companies to fill in a rigidly defined form.

So I think it needs to be toned down, both by s/must/should/
and by either dropping the idea of a standard form, or making
it clear that it is only a suggested format.

   Brian

> the patent holder must disclose the additional details referenced above

<snip>