Subject: draft-polk-ipr-disclosure-00.txt

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:28:06 -0400

Not sure where to discuss this, so I'll try the old ipr-wg mailing
list.

I read through this document and it strikes me as not benig quite sure
what it wants to do. On the one hand, their seems to be an
undercurrent of IETF participants not really living up to their
obligations wrt IPR, which is bad. Specifically, they don't make
disclosures when they should, and something should be done about that.

On the other hand, the document appears loath to actually change
the behavior of WGs or individuals. So it makes some possible
suggestions, but they come across as weak and have no real push
behind them. My guess would be that the document as it is written now
would have little impact on anyone's behavior.

IMO, the IETF suffers a bit from a "don't ask don't tell" mentality
when it comes to IETF disclosures. We have a policy (and procedure),
but the process is not always adhered to rigourously, and folk seem
afraid to actually do much about it. That means there is widely
varying behavior amongst different individuals, even if the majority
of participants do the right thing.

IMO, what might help is bringing more uniformity to the actual
operational processes when it comes to IPR.

For example, if WGs aren't always informed about IPR when they should,
why not make it a SHOULD that WG chairs explicitely ask all the
authors for confirmation that they understand their IPR obligations
and have done so, as per the boilerplate in the IDs themselves. This
can be done the first time a -00 is presented to a WG, again when the
WG formally adopts a document, etc.

This doesn't have to be an onerous process. But having a record
of the author being asked, and responding in the archive (e.g. mailing
list), would make it much much harder for someone to make a late
disclosure and claim they didn't know the rules.

Either we need to do something like the above, or we don't. We should
probably decide. :-) Whether an ID (presumably a BCP) is needed
depends on how the community feels about this question.

Thomas

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 09:53:59 -0600

We had lengthy discussions about this draft on the wg-chairs list. As a
result, Tim and I will most likely let it lapse and place related text
on the WG Chairs' section of the wiki.

On 8/30/11 6:28 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 09:24:00 -0700

On 8/30/2011 5:28 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
> obligations wrt IPR, which is bad.
Especially since there is a level of pain based in the intentional 
engineering of patent protected IP's into IETF standards.
>   Specifically, they don't make
As it happens - there is another issue and that is how the courts are 
reviewing intentional infringements.

http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1093&context=iplr&sei-redir=1#search=%22intentional%20patent%20infringement%22

----------------------------------------------------------------

Expanding upon the general judicial doctrine that willfulness is to be
determined in “consideration of the totality of the circumstances,”26 the
Federal Circuit determined that courts should consider nine factors
established in Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc. that include:
(1) whether the infringer deliberately copied the ideas or design
of another; (2) whether the infringer, when he knew of the
other’s patent protection, investigated the scope of the patent
and formed a good-faith belief that it was invalid or that it was
not infringed; . . . (3) the infringer’s behavior as a party to the
litigation[;] . . . (4) [d]efendant’s size and financial condition[;] (5)
[c]loseness of the case[;] (6) [d]uration of defendant’s
misconduct[;] (7) [r]emedial action by the defendant[;] (8)
[d]efendant’s motivation for harm[; and] (9) [w]hether defendant
attempted to conceal its misconduct.27
> WG formally adopts a document, etc.
yes - why not?

-- 
Todd S. Glassey
This is from my personal email account and any materials from this account come with personal disclaimers.

Further I OPT OUT of any and all commercial emailings.