Subject: IPR Page flaws...

From: "TSG" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:39:52 -0800

Folks - there probably are a number of them (flaws) but the IPR WG Page only 
lists a single data for each filing.

Our filing, IPR filing number 201 for instance shows it was originally filed 
on June 19th 2008...  only it was originally filed originally in 2003 as I 
recall, long before BCP79 came to exist.

That said - this page needs to show not only the edits but all the history 
to those edits. Otherwise proper dates cannot be associated with these 
filings or the IP Rights they codify.

Further BCP79 can only pertain to filings which originally happened after 
its existence. It is not retroactive nor does it change any of the 
contractual relation between the Submitter and the IETF/IESG for those IP's 
which were filed or which the IETF was notified of the existence of prior to 
the original BCP79's becoming operative in IETF process.

Todd Glassey
---
Personal Disclaimers Apply

TS Glassey 

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

---

From: "TSG" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:44:58 -0800

Oops = typo

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "TSG" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 10:39 AM
Subject: IPR Page flaws...

> Folks - there probably are a number of them (flaws) but the IPR WG Page 
> only lists a single data

SIC (DATE)

>  for each filing.
>
> Our filing, IPR filing number 201 for instance shows it was originally 
> filed on June 19th 2008...  only it was originally filed originally in 
> 2003 as I recall, long before BCP79 came to exist

in 2005.

> contractual relation between the Submitter and the IETF/IESG for those 
> IP's which were filed or which the IETF was notified of the existence of 
> prior to the original BCP79's becoming operative in IETF process.
>
>
>
> Todd Glassey
> ---

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:17:16 -0400

Todd:

That is not how I read the page.  I see that IPR statement 954 was 
submitted on 2008-06-19 as an update to IPR statement 210.  IPR 
statement 201 was submitted on 2003-05-29.

I'm looking at https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/

Russ

At 02:44 PM 6/24/2008, TSG wrote:
>Oops = typo
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "TSG" <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>
>>Folks - there probably are a number of them (flaws) but the IPR WG 
>>Page only lists a single data
>
>SIC (DATE)
>
>>  for each filing.
>>
>>Our filing, IPR filing number 201 for instance shows it was 
>>originally filed on June 19th 2008...  only it was originally filed 
>>originally in 2003 as I recall, long before BCP79 came to exist
>
>in 2005.
>
>>
>>That said - this page needs to show not only the edits but all the 
>>history to those edits. Otherwise proper dates cannot be associated 
>>with these filings or the IP Rights they codify.
>>
>>Further BCP79 can only pertain to filings which originally happened 
>>after its existence. It is not retroactive nor does it change any 
>>of the contractual relation between the Submitter and the IETF/IESG 
>>for those IP's which were filed or which the IETF was notified of 
>>the existence of prior to the original BCP79's becoming operative 
>>in IETF process.
>>
>>
>>
>>Todd Glassey
>>---

---

From: "TSG" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:07:29 -0800

Uhhh Geee Russ - The IPR page itself is broken. Among other things as I read 
the page the ONLY data shown on the IPR site page is as follows:

Specific IPR Disclosures

      Date Submitted ID # Title of IPR Disclosure
      2008-06-19 954 Todd S. Glassey, IP owner's Statement about IPR related 
to IPR claimed in Glassey GeoSpatial Keying and Evidentiary Digital 
Testimony Models
      Updates ID #201.

Which UPDATED an original filing  by creating a new one rather than just 
updating the original one. This causes the IETF to seem to think that by 
updating the listing it changes the legal agreement between the party 
submitting the IPR and the IETF. It doesn't by the way.

This filing is and always will be set at the PRIORITY DATE that 201 enjoys 
and IS NOT subject to BCP79 mandated changes...

That was my point. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/  - What the IPR Page 
should show is

    1) the original filing of a claim
    2) a description of the IPR disclosure
    3) revisions history to the IPR Disclosure
    4) a specific flag to denote IPR claims which have already been tested 
in a Court.

As to our filing, to humor you - and not because we have to, I also expanded 
it this AM by listing all of the granted patent's.

SO my feeling is that this representing a new filing as a new number when it 
updates another is an issue. The PRIORITY DATE is lost by the current 
system. Without a precedent data for the PRIORITY (a term taken from the 
Patent World), these commentary's are just that, incomplete records.

201's filing predates BCP78/79
----------
Also I want to reiterate my other point since you seem to be avoiding 
dealing with it, that being that since the original filing of IPR Disclosure 
201 predates the creation of the IETF's GEOPRIV IP  or the requirements of 
BCP78 and BCP79 both there is a very serious damages claim against the IETF, 
and those individuals participating therein as well as their sponsors.

The other issue is that the IETF's intentionally producing IP from 
controlled IP does indeed hurt the owners of that IP since they can no 
longer file in Japan on those claims - Please NOTICE WE DO HAVE A JAPANESE 
PATENT for this as well. That means that the IETF's actions have in fact 
easily demonstrated and factual damage to us and that IP to say the least.

What the IETF should/must do...
----------
When someone files a IPR Draft saying "NO IETF you don't get this IP" then 
the IETF *** MUST *** block that area of IP out so that it doesn't 
transgress into it. The problem is simply that the IETF cannot continue 
development on IP, and it also cannot stop paying attention to claims and 
filings that predate BCP79.

      As to the claim of not being liable for the damages because BCP69 says 
so is horse pucky. The IETF's process that caused this damage was approved 
directly by the IESG. So the failure of the process to protect commercial IP 
Rights is the fault of the IESG...

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Russ Housley" <[email-masked]>
To: "TSG" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: IPR Page flaws...

> submitted on 2008-06-19 as an update to IPR statement 210.  IPR statement 
> 201 was submitted on 2003-05-29.
>
>>>history to those edits. Otherwise proper dates cannot be associated with 
>>>these filings or the IP Rights they codify.
>>>