Subject: Require disclosure from those who implement RFCs?

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:22:02 -0500

Can we constrain the implementers of IETF standards?
    For instance, would it be possible or appropriate to require that
those who implement or claim to implement IETF standards are required to
disclose any IPR rights they have in the standards implemented?
Implementation without disclosure would be taken as a grant of RF rights
to other implementers of the standard.
    This might involve adding additional boilerplate to the body of
Internet Drafts and RFCs. It could be extended perhaps by trademarking
the "RFC" name so that the use of "RFCxxxx" would be controllable.
    The idea is to flush out submarine claims as early as possible by
forcing an implementer to have to trade off earlier than desired
disclosure against the ability to claim a conforming implementation.
 
        bob wyman

---

From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:26:29 -0800

This is dealt with in the W3C patent policy by a reciprocity
requirement.  The policy states that patent licenses to practice W3C
standards can be conditioned upon reciprocal patent licenses by third
parties.  This has the effect of denying RF patent licenses for W3C
standards to those who don't grant RF patent licenses for their own
essential claims.
 
Reciprocity is far more valuable than a requirement merely to disclose a
patent claim.
 
/Larry Rosen

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Bob Wyman
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 7:22 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Require disclosure from those who implement RFCs?

        bob wyman

---

From: Florian Weimer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 20:30:17 +0100

> disclose any IPR rights they have in the standards implemented?

Hmm, if I participate in a WG as a student or staff member, does this
mean that I have to convince my university to disclaim all IPR
interests in the technology?

I don't think this is a workable solution.  Such disclaimers are hard
to obtain.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:55:26 -0800

> Hmm, if I participate in a WG as a student or staff member, 
> does this mean that I have to convince my university to 
> disclaim all IPR interests in the technology?
> 
> I don't think this is a workable solution.  Such disclaimers 
> are hard to obtain. 

This specific issue arose in the W3C context.  As you may know, W3C is
(in some sense?) a project of MIT.  Do the W3C staffers who run or
participate in working groups commit MIT to disclose or license all its
patents royalty-free?  The answer, as I recall, is "no."

A similar question arose about attorneys like me.  I serve as an invited
expert on the W3C Patent Policy Working Group.  Do I have to disclose or
license the patents owned by my other clients?  The answer again is
"no."

These are not unimportant questions, and the precise wording of a patent
policy must give answers.  What we need to do is understand what we're
trying to accomplish (the goals or objectives of patent disclosure or
licensing) so that we can balance those with IP rights.  Although some
might want to do away with patents altogether, I believe we instead must
balance IPR with the public benefit of free and unencumbered industry
standards in software and communications.  The words of the policy will
be easy to write once those issues are addressed.

W3C didn't dodge these issues by avoiding disclosure and RF licensing
requirements altogether.  They discussed and settled them in the written
policy document.

/Larry Rosen