Subject: [Geopriv] IPR on geopriv-arch

From: "Richard L. Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:58:09 -0400

<hat type="chair"/>

Hey all,

Two IPR disclosures have been filed with regard to draft-ietf-geopriv- 
arch, one from Qualcomm and one from Enterasys:
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1394/>
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1402/>

The Qualcomm disclosure relates to an unpublished US patent  
application, so no information is available from the USPTO website.   
Robert and I have asked Qualcomm for further technical details, but  
have not received any.  The Enterasys disclosure relates to three  
issued patents.

The question for the group is whether the WG is comfortable moving  
these documents forward given these IPR disclosures.  If you have  
thoughts on this question, please send them to the list no later than  
Monday, 18 Oct.

Thanks,
--Richard

---

From: "Richard L. Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:05:33 -0400

<hat type="individual"/>

I am comfortable with this document moving forward.  I have looked at  
the Enterasys patents, and it looks to me like they relate to specific  
applications (location-based access control and routing), so that they  
don't intrude on a general location architecture.  With regard to the  
Qualcomm disclosure, their reluctance to provide information makes me  
a little nervous, but it still seems like this document is abstract  
enough that it would be useful in spite of IPR claims on some specific  
realizations.

--Richard

On Oct 12, 2010, at 11:58 AM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:

> <hat type="chair"/>
>
> Hey all,
>
> Two IPR disclosures have been filed with regard to draft-ietf- 
> geopriv-arch, one from Qualcomm and one from Enterasys:
> thoughts on this question, please send them to the list no later  
> than Monday, 18 Oct.
>
> Thanks,
> --Richard
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:44:36 -0500

>enough that it would be useful in spite of IPR claims on some specific

It's hard to feel comfortable about the unknown.

James

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:44:25 -0700

> It's hard to feel comfortable about the unknown.

Yes but one thing is certain and that is that this same draft also
violates the GEOPRIV IPR notices we already have on file as well so...
there are other issues.

And FWIW - the next Court date in the first litigation of that patent
issue... is tomorrow with the next one being the 9th of November.

Todd Glassey

> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3192 - Release Date: 10/11/10 23:34:00
> 

-- 
//-----------------------------------------------------------------

This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the
addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose or take any action based
on this message or any information herein. If you have received this
message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete this message.

Thank you for your cooperation.

---

From: "Richard L. Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 19:35:27 -0400

Todd,

If you believe there are IPR concerns related to active GEOPRIV  
documents, the Note Well statement (by reference to RFC 3979) says  
that you must disclose them according to the directions here:
<http://www.ietf.org/ipr-instructions>

While I see from the IPR tracker that you are well familiar with this  
process, I do not see any filings from you with regard to this  
particular document.

--Richard

---

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 07:38:07 +0800

I agree Richard, and I am happy for this document to proceed.

Cheers
James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Richard L. Barnes
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 October 2010 3:06 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] IPR on geopriv-arch
> 
> <hat type="individual"/>
>

---

From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 07:45:10 +0800

I agree.

This document covers a broad area.  It seems unlikely that all aspects of the subject could be free from IPR encumbrance.  The framework and definitions are still valuable.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Winterbottom, James
Sent: Thursday, 14 October 2010 10:38 AM
To: Richard L. Barnes; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] IPR on geopriv-arch

Cheers
James

---

From: "Carl Reed" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:52:52 -0600

Me to. In the OGC, we track a variety of patents that could possibly 
infringe our standards work. So far, at least in the GIS, we are fortunate 
that there is so much publicly available prior art from projects in the 
1970's and 1980's. Further, much of the early work in the OGC - such as in 
web mapping - predates by at least a couple of years most of the web mapping 
related patents.

Which brings me to a perhaps valuable fact: Back in 2003, the OGC Members 
began development of a geo digital rights management reference model. This 
work culminated in the OGC (and soon ISO) approving the GeoRM Reference 
Model. This approval occurred in 2006. As the GeoPriv Arch document, the GRM 
defines a model, terminology, use cases, and so forth for rights management 
of location content. If one reads this document, there are considerable 
similarities between the GeoPriv and OGC documents. Might be interesting to 
check consistent terminology :-) 
http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/as/geodrmrm

My observation - and why I am happy for this excellent document to proceed - 
is that the GeoPriv Arch defines a model and is technology/implementation 
agnostic.

That said, now that I have actually read the document, I will pass this 
document to the OGC rights management community for comment.

Cheers

Carl

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 07:34:50 -0700

On 10/13/2010 4:35 PM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
> documents, the Note Well statement (by reference to RFC 3979) says that
> you must disclose them according to the directions here:

I have already filed numerous instances of claims in the IPR Area
Richard for GEOPRIOV and Location Based Services - considering I
invented specifically them 13 years ago.

By the way - I have a new control protocol for SMART MUNITIONS including
those which are used in some of the Ballistic Sensor Fused Munitions (of
which GPS Guided devices are just one instance).

> process, I do not see any filings from you with regard to this

There is NO contractual practice the IETF can require of someone who is
not formally a member of the IETF with regard to these filings. In fact
the ONLY people the term MUST can possibly pertain to are
1)	Parties submitting data to the IETF for republication; or
2)	Members of the IETF who are contractually tied to NoteWell and the
other IPR rules.

So... anytime you want to force those words of yours into stone and we
can address the issues of #1 or #2 then  fine. The idea that after an
initial disclosure of the existence of IPR pertaining to a specific
subject constitutes a fraud on the IETF's part in

	A)	Requiring permanent diligence to meet the demand term MUST per your
analysis

	B)	Having permanent legal staff also on call to address these issues
and to manage the incompetence of the IETF and its members.

By the way the failure of the IETF representative of any entity to
convey legal notices to their own legal department is also a key issue
since most technology companies still hide from what their engineers do
here.

Todd

> Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3195 - Release Date: 10/13/10 11:34:00
>

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 08:12:27 -0700

On 10/13/2010 4:52 PM, Carl Reed wrote:
> s and 1980's. Further, much of the early work in the OGC - such as in
> web mapping - predates by at least a couple of years most of the web
> mapping related patents

The real issue is the outgoing license which does not mandate that each
adopter MUST (and I means that 'must' in caps) do formal diligence on
their use of these IP's because the IETF cannot give anyone license to
directly or indirectly assign, use, reproduce or convey any rights
pertaining to the underlying Intellectual Properties that are described
in the IETF Publications referred to as Internet Drafts and other public
documents they produce.

Further the IETF's Copyright ss107 rights only pertain to actions in
furtherance of the IETF's research meaning "ANY USE OF THEIR IP WHICH IS
REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM IS ALSO CONSTRAINED BY NOTEWELL AND THE IETF
PROCESSES SINCE THE ONLY POSSIBLE USE OF COPYRIGHT ACT SECTION 107 USE
OF RESEARCH-EXEMPTIONS MUST TAKE PLACE WITHIN THAT FORMAL FRAMEWORK THAT
THE IP WAS INITIALLY PUBLISHED IN OR IT WILL CONSTITUTE PRIVATE USE TO
FURTHER A COMMERCIAL ENDEAVOR WHETHER THAT ENDEAVOR IS ACADEMIC IN FORM
OR IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR TOTALLY.

What I find interesting is that any IDIOT who reads the copyright act
would get that. So it means that the NOTEWELL practice as its sits is
legally broken - the question is whether the management of the IETF has
potential liability for this stupidity in its process-design is not
something I want to touch on here.

So this all boils down to

1)	Whether the IETF's and OGC are functionally licensing technology to
people which is already protected by existing IP protections or not.

2)	Whether the SDG's reliance on (c) section 107 is an issue for anyone
republishing those documents with copyrighted content from others in
them since the IETF is allowing parties to use its documents for any and
all purposes outside of the IETF's standards process by functionally
ignoring these issues.

Personally I think these are real issues for the IETF but that's just my
two cents.

Todd Glassey

---

From: "Carl Reed" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:03:46 -0600

Todd -

As far as I know, you are not an IP lawyer, so don't pretend to be one. 
Before making accusations, I would suggest you learn how the IETF (and other 
standards organizations) develop their IPR policies.

Carl

---

From: "Richard L. Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:17:46 -0400

Todd,

General comments about IETF IPR policies are not appropriate for this  
list.  If you want to challenge those policies, please forward these  
comments to the IETF list.

--Richard

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:13:27 -0700

> comments to the IETF list.

Richard - you seem to think that their intentionally creating bad policy
controls the protection of your licensing of this IP and that may be the
funniest thing ever.

You and the OGC and the GeoPriv operations are all constrained by these
issues whether you like it or not.  Sorry - the idea that the Guy in the
Labcoat gets to say "Never mind the little spud in the labcoat, pay
attention to the great and might Oz" is so much crap it's comical.

ANY GROUP WHICH CREATES IP MUST DEAL WITH THESE ISSUES, and pointing to
the IPR WG is the same incompetence that the whole IETF is run from,
that being IMHO a system  designed to allow technologists to ignore the
laws and processes the rest of the earth is constrained by.

But wait - lets get BBN Legal involved to see what BB&N's formal take on
this is, and whether they as the home of TCP/IP implement the same legal
controls the IETF has in place.

"No" you don't want that to happen??? Yeah - that's what I thought you
would say.

Todd Glassey

> Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3198 - Release Date: 10/14/10 23:34:00
>

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 14:34:15 -0700

> As far as I know, you are not an IP lawyer, so don't pretend to be one.

Really Carl???  I have three pieces of litigation over IP infringement
in the US and California Courts right now and one of them is on the GPS
Location Control Patent. I have another in the Bankruptcy Court over a
BK Fraud Complaint I filed.

> Before making accusations, I would suggest you learn how the IETF (and
> other standards organizations) develop their IPR policies.

Oh you mean this WG - http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ipr/charter/  ???

You may want to check the groups archive before shoving your leg any
farther down your throat unless you like looking like an idiot.

So lets talk about IPR and the use of any IPR since this constrains
potential issues for this WG. The idea that you are not responsible for
laws you break because the idiots in the IPR WG said you were clear is
so funny I cant stand it.

IP per 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) - AKA "the Hatch Wellman Act"...
-----------------------------------------------------------
As it happens "Hatch Wellman" is REAL CLEAR and the use by a commercial
entity of ANY PATENTED IP IS ILLEGAL UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), which
stated that mere “use” of a patented invention, without either
manufacture or sale, is actionable. It reasoned that experiments that
are in keeping with the legitimate business of an alleged infringer are
not exempt from infringement.

We tried to tell this to Harald and he ignored us... and in fact he
banished me for insisting "the IETF was incompetent for refusing to
review how 35 USC 271 actually plays into this". Check the archive...

IETF Paper Tigers
-----------------
One of my favorite IETF paper-tigers (you know those fictitious
full-body condoms that techies put in place to justify "forcing the rest
of the world to ignore their incompetence?") is the Copyright Act's
Research Exemption, Section 107. The problem is that (C) SS107 does not
set aside HATCH WELLMAN and that's the issue here.

The idea was from what I understood from Harald and the rest of the IPR
Team "that since it (the iETF) is only publishing paper about technology
no IP Rights to devices or to enable the actual use of that IP in
software or hardware are necessary" but this shows how really stupid the
management of the IPR WG is. The law is the law, and the use of patented
IPR in this forum is controlled under Hatch-Wellman and that is that.

Under Hatch-Wellman the publication of those patented IP's in a research
document by any entity who's commercial in form is prohibited. In
instances where that entity's commercial products are pure research is
also a commercial use. So no, the IETF is not exempt since it's
"business" now that there is an  IP Management Trust with paid staff is
to protect that IP, this created a whole new world of hurt I think.

Here is a pointer to an analysis out of the ABA on the effect of
Hatch-Wellman.

http://www.abanet.org/genpractice/magazine/2005/mar/hatchwaxmanact.html

How stupid can the management of the IETF really get?
-----------------------------------------
Pretty freaking stupid is the answer I think.

You understand under Hatch-Wellman and the (C) ss 107 research
exemption, that this functionally means that "NO ONE MAY REPRODUCE ANY
IETF WORKS FOR ANY PURPOSE BUT THE ADVANCEMENT OF THOSE STANDARDS WITHIN
THE IETF STANDARDS PROCESS" and if that IP Contains ANY patented IP its
protected from even the IETF's use because of its licensing models today
by Hatch Wellman.

One would also think that this means that NO ONE may claim that research
exemption for any purpose after that research is complete.
----------------------
Meaning that once the IETF Standard is issued no one could reproduce
those documents since the sponsoring entity - the IETF would have
formally completed the research which created that work-product.
Likewise when all formal work in extending or formalizing that product
was completed like what happens with many IETF initiative when the RFC's
are issued, that also would end the research phase of that effort
terminating ANY AND ALL PUBLICATION rights against that IETF publication
as well. Ooops...

If that party is a commercial entity - the IETF Licensing is worthless.
------------------------------------
What that probably means is that anyone who is reproducing the IETF
Publications outside of the standards process for any use other than the
limited scope of that specific initiatives research, like all of the
parties operating the hundreds of mirrors or those supplying hardcopy as
part of their documentation packages as another instance, is in direct
violation of the copyright act and also possibly the Hatch-Wellman act
which opens them to litigation and possible prosecution one would think.

Why hasn't this blown up 'till now?
-----------------------------------
Good question - the answer is no one has pressed a formal complaint
against the parties who are participating in the IETF yet, but you gotta
know that this is coming and that the IETF is going to get bitch-slapped
(I think that's the prop-ah "Term of Art") when someone (some commercial
sponsor) is sued for what their staff do in what I casually describe as
this grossly unregulated Standards Development Group IMHO.

BTW - who specifically do you work for, I want to bring their legal
people into this process now and show them your commentary here. I am
betting they will not be too happy with you.

Or you could just apologize formally...

Todd Glassey
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 20:15:41 -0700

> On 10/15/2010 8:03 AM, Carl Reed wrote:

My apologies to the Group for this caustic response but the idea that
anyone can be not-responsible for bad IP practices because someone else
said to is funny.

Again my apologies to the group for this commentary.

Todd

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 20:05:43 +0300

Hey Richard, 

I looked at the available IPRs and based on what I have seen I suggest to go ahead with the publication of the geopriv-arch document. 

Ciao
Hannes

On Oct 12, 2010, at 6:58 PM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:

> <hat type="chair"/>
> 
> Hey all,
> 
> Two IPR disclosures have been filed with regard to draft-ietf-geopriv-arch, one from Qualcomm and one from Enterasys:
> The Qualcomm disclosure relates to an unpublished US patent application, so no information is available from the USPTO website.  Robert and I have asked Qualcomm for further technical details, but have not received any.  The Enterasys disclosure relates to three issued patents.
> 
> The question for the group is whether the WG is comfortable moving these documents forward given these IPR disclosures.  If you have thoughts on this question, please send them to the list no later than Monday, 18 Oct.
> 
> Thanks,
> --Richard

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:33:01 +0200

The discussion in this direction is irrelevant to the geopriv group.

The geopriv group has no responsibility for finding whether the IPR declarations are valid (nor does the IETF), or indeed for chasing missing IPR declarations (which the IETF probably as a whole does have - but you do that on different lists).

The sole responsibility of the geopriv group on this question is to decide whether the proposed RFC should change direction to another solution as a result of these declarations.

For my two cents, carry on as we are.

Keith

> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of todd glassey
> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 4:16 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> My apologies to the Group for this caustic response but the
> idea that anyone can be not-responsible for bad IP practices
> because someone else said to is funny.
>
> > in the US and California Courts right now and one of them is on the
> > GPS Location Control Patent. I have another in the Bankruptcy Court
> > over a BK Fraud Complaint I filed.
> >
> >> Before making accusations, I would suggest you learn how the IETF
> >> (and other standards organizations) develop their IPR policies.
> >
> >
> > Oh you mean this WG -
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ipr/charter/  ???
> >
> > potential issues for this WG. The idea that you are not responsible
> > for laws you break because the idiots in the IPR WG said you were
> > clear is so funny I cant stand it.
> >
> >
> > As it happens "Hatch Wellman" is REAL CLEAR and the use by a
> > commercial entity of ANY PATENTED IP IS ILLEGAL UNDER 35 U.S.C. §
> > 271(a), which stated that mere “use” of a patented
> invention, without
> > either manufacture or sale, is actionable. It reasoned that
> > experiments that are in keeping with the legitimate business of an
> > alleged infringer are not exempt from infringement.
> >
> > full-body condoms that techies put in place to justify "forcing the
> > rest of the world to ignore their incompetence?") is the Copyright
> > Act's Research Exemption, Section 107. The problem is that
> (C) SS107
> > does not set aside HATCH WELLMAN and that's the issue here.
> >
> > The idea was from what I understood from Harald and the rest of the
> > IPR Team "that since it (the iETF) is only publishing paper about
> > technology no IP Rights to devices or to enable the actual
> use of that
> > IP in software or hardware are necessary" but this shows how really
> > stupid the management of the IPR WG is. The law is the law, and the
> > use of patented IPR in this forum is controlled under
> Hatch-Wellman and that is that.
> >
> > Under Hatch-Wellman the publication of those patented IP's in a
> > research document by any entity who's commercial in form is
> > prohibited. In instances where that entity's commercial
> products are
> > pure research is also a commercial use. So no, the IETF is
> not exempt
> > since it's "business" now that there is an  IP Management
> Trust with
> > paid staff is to protect that IP, this created a whole new
> world of hurt I think.
> >
> > IETF WORKS FOR ANY PURPOSE BUT THE ADVANCEMENT OF THOSE STANDARDS
> > WITHIN THE IETF STANDARDS PROCESS" and if that IP Contains ANY
> > patented IP its protected from even the IETF's use because of its
> > licensing models today by Hatch Wellman.
> >
> > One would also think that this means that NO ONE may claim that
> > research exemption for any purpose after that research is complete.
> > ----------------------
> > was completed like what happens with many IETF initiative when the
> > RFC's are issued, that also would end the research phase of that
> > effort terminating ANY AND ALL PUBLICATION rights against that IETF
> > publication as well. Ooops...
> >
> >
> > Publications outside of the standards process for any use
> other than
> > the limited scope of that specific initiatives research,
> like all of
> > the parties operating the hundreds of mirrors or those supplying
> > hardcopy as part of their documentation packages as another
> instance,
> > is in direct violation of the copyright act and also possibly the
> > Hatch-Wellman act which opens them to litigation and
> possible prosecution one would think.
> >
> >
> > against the parties who are participating in the IETF yet, but you
> > gotta know that this is coming and that the IETF is going to get
> > bitch-slapped (I think that's the prop-ah "Term of Art")
> when someone
> > (some commercial
> > sponsor) is sued for what their staff do in what I casually
> describe
> > as this grossly unregulated Standards Development Group IMHO.
> >
> >
> >>> By the way - I have a new control protocol for SMART MUNITIONS
> >>> including those which are used in some of the Ballistic
> Sensor Fused
> >>> Munitions (of which GPS Guided devices are just one instance).
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> While I see from the IPR tracker that you are well familiar with
> >>>> this process, I do not see any filings from you with
> regard to this
> >>>> particular document.
> >>>
> >>> There is NO contractual practice the IETF can require of
> someone who
> >>> is not formally a member of the IETF with regard to these
> filings.
> >>> In fact the ONLY people the term MUST can possibly pertain to are
> >>> 2) Members of the IETF who are contractually tied to NoteWell and
> >>> the other IPR rules.
> >>>
> >>> So... anytime you want to force those words of yours into
> stone and
> >>> we can address the issues of #1 or #2 then  fine. The idea that
> >>> after an initial disclosure of the existence of IPR
> pertaining to a
> >>> specific subject constitutes a fraud on the IETF's part in
> >>>
> >>> A) Requiring permanent diligence to meet the demand term MUST per
> >>> your analysis
> >>>
> >>> convey legal notices to their own legal department is also a key
> >>> issue since most technology companies still hide from what their
> >>> engineers do here.
> >>>
> >>> Todd
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --Richard
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> I am comfortable with this document moving forward.  I have
> >>>>>>> looked at the Enterasys patents, and it looks to me like they
> >>>>>>> relate to specific applications (location-based
> access control
> >>>>>>> and routing), so that they don't intrude on a general
> location
> >>>>>>> architecture.  With regard to the Qualcomm disclosure, their
> >>>>>>> reluctance to provide information makes me a little
> nervous, but
> >>>>>>> it still seems like this document is abstract enough that it
> >>>>>>> would be useful in spite of IPR claims on some specific
> >>>>>>> realizations.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> And FWIW - the next Court date in the first litigation of that
> >>>>> patent issue... is tomorrow with the next one being the
> 9th of November.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Todd Glassey
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --Richard
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Robert and I have asked Qualcomm for further
> technical details,
> >>>>>>>> but have not received any.  The Enterasys disclosure
> relates to
> >>>>>>>> three issued patents.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The question for the group is whether the WG is comfortable
> >>>>>>>> moving these documents forward given these IPR
> disclosures.  If
> >>>>>>>> you have thoughts on this question, please send them to the
> >>>>>>>> list no later than Monday, 18 Oct.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>> --Richard
> >>>>> addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose or take any action
> >>>>> based on this message or any information herein. If you have
> >>>>> received this message in error, please advise the sender
> >>>>> immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message.
> >>>>>
> >>> message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply
> >>> e-mail and delete this message.
> >>>

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 07:42:03 -0700

> The sole responsibility of the geopriv group on this question is to decide whether the proposed RFC should change direction to another solution as a result of these declarations.

No Keith, The SOLE RESPONSIBILITY of the participants is to formally
represent their sponsors, and yours is clearly Alcatel.

So lets look at Alcatel's IP Acquisition rules Keith... they are pretty
solid and are much stronger than anything the parties  in the IETF have
set up.

And finally lets ask, as a good and law-abiding representative,  have
you reported these issues to them? or is this yet another matter where
the sponsor is held legally in the dark by their IETF representative(s)
creating a massive liability for them?

Todd Glassey

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 02:15:51 +0200

Reread my mail.

The IETF sets up various mailing lists with a set scope.

The GEOPRIV mailing list is to progress the discussions allocated to the GEOPRIV working group. WG discussions on IPR are limited to using the IPR statements to decide whether a document should progress with the current technical solution, or a different technical solution.

Quote BCP 79:

   (C) Where Intellectual Property Rights have been disclosed for IETF
       Documents as provided in Section 6 of this document, the IETF
       Executive Director shall request from the discloser of such IPR,
       a written assurance that upon approval by the IESG for
       publication as RFCs of the relevant IETF specification(s), all
       persons will be able to obtain the right to implement, use,
       distribute and exercise other rights with respect to Implementing
       Technology under one of the licensing options specified in
       Section 6.5 below unless such a statement has already been
       submitted.  The working group proposing the use of the technology
       with respect to which the Intellectual Property Rights are
       disclosed may assist the IETF Executive Director in this effort.

       The results of this procedure shall not, in themselves, block
       publication of an IETF Document or advancement of an IETF
       Document along the standards track.  A working group may take
       into consideration the results of this procedure in evaluating
       the technology, and the IESG may defer approval when a delay may
       facilitate obtaining such assurances.  The results will, however,
       be recorded by the IETF Executive Director, and be made available
       online.

8.  Evaluating Alternative Technologies in IETF Working Groups

   In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR
   claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of
   royalty-free licensing.  But IETF working groups have the discretion
   to adopt technology with a commitment of fair and non-discriminatory
   terms, or even with no licensing commitment, if they feel that this
   technology is superior enough to alternatives with fewer IPR claims
   or free licensing to outweigh the potential cost of the licenses.

   Over the last few years the IETF has adopted stricter requirements
   for some security technologies.  It has become common to have a
   mandatory-to-implement security technology in IETF technology
   specifications.  This is to ensure that there will be at least one
   common security technology present in all implementations of such a
   specification that can be used in all cases.  This does not limit the
   specification from including other security technologies, the use of
   which could be negotiated between implementations.  An IETF consensus
   has developed that no mandatory-to-implement security technology can
   be specified in an IETF specification unless it has no known IPR
   claims against it or a royalty-free license is available to
   implementers of the specification unless there is a very good reason
   to do so.  This limitation does not extend to other security
   technologies in the same specification if they are not listed as
   mandatory-to-implement.

   It should also be noted that the absence of IPR disclosures is not
   the same thing as the knowledge that there will be no IPR claims in
   the future.  People or organizations not currently involved in the
   IETF or people or organizations that discover IPR they feel to be
   relevant in their patent portfolios can make IPR disclosures at any
   time.

   It should also be noted that the validity and enforceability of any
   IPR may be challenged for legitimate reasons, and the mere existence
   of an IPR disclosure should not automatically be taken to mean that
   the disclosed IPR is valid or enforceable.  Although the IETF can
   make no actual determination of validity, enforceability or
   applicability of any particular IPR claim, it is reasonable that a
   working group will take into account on their own opinions of the
   validity, enforceability or applicability of Intellectual Property
   Rights in their evaluation of alternative technologies.

If you want a different discussion to that on IPR, go to some other list in the IETF.

Keith

> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 3:42 PM
> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> Cc: [email-masked]
> > The geopriv group has no responsibility for finding whether
> the IPR declarations are valid (nor does the IETF), or indeed
> for chasing missing IPR declarations (which the IETF probably
> as a whole does have - but you do that on different lists).
> >
> > The sole responsibility of the geopriv group on this
> question is to decide whether the proposed RFC should change
> direction to another solution as a result of these declarations.
> >
>
> No Keith, The SOLE RESPONSIBILITY of the participants is to
> formally represent their sponsors, and yours is clearly Alcatel.
>
> So lets look at Alcatel's IP Acquisition rules Keith... they
> are pretty solid and are much stronger than anything the
> parties  in the IETF have set up.
>
> And finally lets ask, as a good and law-abiding
> representative,  have you reported these issues to them? or
> is this yet another matter where the sponsor is held legally
> in the dark by their IETF representative(s) creating a
> massive liability for them?
>
> Todd Glassey
>
> >> anyone can be not-responsible for bad IP practices because someone
> >> else said to is funny.
> >>
> http://www.abanet.org/genpractice/magazine/2005/mar/hatchwaxmanact.ht
> >> m
> >>> l
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3192 -
> Release Date:
> >>>>>>>> 10/11/10 23:34:00
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>