Subject: IP Discolsure #201

From: "TSG" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:34:33 -0800

FYI -
I changed (updated) the IPR #201 disclosure today to accurately reflect the 
licensing terms (as in "this is only available under commercial terms and NO 
GRANT of RIGHTS to the IETF is made"), and to further note the issuance 
dates of the US patent.

Thanks,
Todd Glassey 

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

---

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:02:03 -0400

Dear Todd,

Thank you for updating IPR Disclosure 201.

Under Section 6.4.1 of RFC 3979, IPR Disclosures must list the specific
IETF Document(s) or activity affected.  Section IV of your IPR
Disclosure does not appear to make reference to a specific IETF Document
or activity.

I would also like to draw your attention to Section 4(C) of RFC 3979,
which states that "The IESG disclaims any responsibility for ...
evaluating the applicability of any IPR, disclosed or otherwise, to any
IETF technology, specification or standard..."

Best regards,
Jorge Contreras

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of TSG
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 6:35 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: IP Discolsure #201
> 
> FYI -

---

From: "TSG" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:08:34 -0800

Jorge - as an attorney - you crack me up... So  while we are getting the 
service documents ready,  let me ask Counsel -

1)    What dates were those BCP 79 documents filed and updated at???. I.e. 
when did BCP79 get filed (March 2005) and when was it formally updated - 
i.e. when and what were those updates to the text.

My argument is that the IPR's were happening before that and my original 
filing and notice to the IETF took place years before the numerously amended 
BCP79 showed up. Unfortunately that would be bad contract law to try and 
unilaterally enforce a contract against someone who was denied participation 
in that WG to effect proper changes and who was ignored intentionally by 
that WG and its Chair Harald A.

The reason I ask is that I also posted my notice to the IETF's IPR Listing 
YEARS PRIOR to any  GeoPRIV activity - in fact several years before. Since 
it predates the GeoPRIV WG's creation your point below is wrong.

As to how long ago this was originally disclosed, it was in 2002 around 
March or April as I recall when the US Patent was formally issued. It was 
discussed in PKIX and several other areas. I even tried to create a GeoPriv 
group and was slammed by Harald and several others. So no - the IETF and the 
IESG are directly liable here and their WG Chairs and their Sponsor's also 
have direct liability.

2)    By the way - IMHO the IETF' and IESG's "Not being responsible" 
disclaimer WILL NOT stand up in Court either since there is no positive 
notice. Also I'll tell you what counsel, the IPR process is also flawed 
since it would require continuous sorting through ALL IETF document's to 
enable a competent listing to be made and that is not only unreasonable its 
impossible... Since the IETF's life-blood and profit is the publishing of 
those documents, it and the original submitters are liable here. Its not the 
submission of those document's but the consummated publishing of them that 
makes the Secretariate liable for IP Fraud by Wire under the Computer Fraud 
and Abuse Act.

3)    That said - Who would the IETF like formal service sent to.

I have asked this many times but this time if I don't get an answer I will 
name WilmerHale and you as co-defendants in this same matter.

Oh and I will also file a tax claim against the 2B of IP currently in the 
library since 501's don't get to hide their points of service. In this 
process we will document the value of the IP and the paper frauds 
perpetrated against the US Government in hiding the true owners of the IP 
and its valuation.

As to 501's - they don't get the same latitude that for-profit entities get. 
They MUST be formally listed which the IETF's are not. In fact if you force 
me to go to this level of trouble I plan to have a judge order that 
information made formally public as well because of the International IP 
Fraud Issues in this case. I bet this helps qualify this matter as a RICO 
case too.

This is going to be amusing.

Todd Glassey, IP Owner

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
To: "TSG" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; "Russ Housley" <[email-masked]>; "Ray
Pelletier" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 6:02 PM
Subject: RE: IP Disclosure #201

Dear Todd,

Best regards,
Jorge Contreras

> Subject: IP Disclosure #201
>
> FYI -

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:38:54 +0200

TSG wrote:

> when did BCP79 get filed (March 2005) and when was it
> formally updated

Go to <http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp79> and note that
it contains more than one RFC, i.e. RFC 3979 (2005-03)
and 4879 (2007-05).  Also note that RFC 3979 obsoleted
RFC 3668.

Click on RFC 3668, it was BCP 79 before RFC 3979, and
it was published 2004-02.  No further track to older
documents, therefore BCP 79 was created 2004-02.

> i.e. when and what were those updates to the text.

Compare the texts for the "what", and the dates for
the "when".  Better read these texts in conjunction
with BCP 78, but YMMV.

> the IPR process is also flawed since it would 
> require continuous sorting through ALL IETF
> document's to enable a competent listing to be
> made

All submitted IPR notes are by definition never
checked for their "competence", and only "required"
in the cases documented in the BCP.  Any participant
or WG is free to judge or ignore the "competence" of
a submitted IPR note as they see fit.

And as individual IETF participant I'm entitled to
post whatever Internet drafts I like, about ternary
bits, or about persons using GPS instead of Galileo.
 
 Frank