Subject: Resolution of #1245 - Does describing a technology require a license from the people who originally described it?

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 18:50:44 +0200

This did not get included in my omnibus resolution of tickets.

After Larry Rosen's pretty thorough explanation, and after discussing 
this with Jorge, I think the answer is clearly "no".

Issue closed.

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

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 13:31:04 -0700

Ahahahah - Harald - then I think you got bad legal advice. But I am pretty
sure that neither good professional lawyers like Larry or Jorge would be
reckless enough to comment on the record that the IETF's processes were
fine, and by the way so you and I are real clear about this, nothing less
will meet the criteria of this commentary. You said you got formal legal
advice - fine prove it.

---

And Harald - hey, as long as we are at it, lets look  in Larry's acerbic
retort to me. In his backlash he answered nothing about the questions I
asked. What he did was to run the litany of  the specific sections of
Copyright Law that should protect a legitimate copyright holder, assuming
they had the resources to sue to protect those rights if they were infringed
upon, but in doing so he didn't answer any question regarding these uses.

So lets be real clear about this, its my understanding that the
implementation of any program based on a description in an IETF Draft or RFC
has to be licensed - the IETF's use is only to print copies for
standardization unless it wants to assume ownership of those other rights.
if Larry or Jorge can point out specific Points and Authorities on this that
supports their claims I would stand down on this immediately. So far they
have refused to do so though.

Exclusivity vs Non-exclusivity...
--------------------------------
But by the way Harald - didn't you and others tell me that the owners of the
IP retain all rights to it. Didn't Larry also retort to that as well???
well
then let me ask, how is that possible if the IETF's Trust has the right to
license companies for money to build this protocol? That is after all what
the Trust is planning on doing right? because gee, if the person who
submitted the rights to the IETF shares equal rights to the Trust why would
anyone do
business with the Trust???

Lets be real clear about this, to do business and raise money from the IP,
the Trust, if its to derive commercial uses from the IETF's protocol's, by
pure definition must be the exclusive owner of the IP and so we are back to
wet signatures to perform that or an eSign based process.

And oh by the way - the valuation of the IP is in the millions of dollars I
am betting based on the costs involved with the Vetting making any donation
of anything to the IETF Trust a very considerable one - and one with Tax
Implications.

You crack me up...

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 9:50 AM
Subject: Resolution of #1245 - Does describing a technology require a
license from the people who originally described it?