Subject: RE: History of IPR in IP Storage WG and Questions It Raises

From: "Eric Burger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 16:42:51 -0500

I fully agree (and understand).  What got me started on the thread was the statement below that I took as the writer's desire to change that position.

[email-masked] wrote:

This is problematic, in that while it may or may not satisfy a legal
requirement (e.g. Dell VL-Bus suit), it would not satisfy the spirit of
the request.  That is, in order for a WG to make an intelligent
decision on a technology, they need to know about any IPR that any of
their contributors (where contributions is defined as attendance,
verbal or written comment or formal submission) might possess about a
technology when it is being discussed.  While the general statement
may allow anyone to license adopted IPR on reasonable terms and
conditions, it does not meet the IETF's technical need.  The working
group needs to have some information to make its determination about
the decision on the technology (it is understood that companies will not
always be willing or able to give pointers to the specific location of
the claim, or the claim may still be pending, so the information cannot be 
expected to be perfect).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Bradner [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 4:15 PM
> To: Eric Burger; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: History of IPR in IP Storage WG and Questions It Raises
> 
> 
> > What the IETF *cannot* do is require me to give away my 
> portfolio because 
> > someone else submitted my protected property.
> 
> nor does it try to do so
> 
> > The IETF *cannot* require me to monitor every work group to 
> see if someone 
> > else is giving away my property.
> 
> nor does it try to
> but if you want to play in a group where this happened you have to say
> "hey, that's my IPR" before playing
> 
> Scott
> 
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 16:53:06 -0500

On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 04:42:51PM -0500, Eric Burger allegedly wrote:
> I fully agree (and understand).  What got me started on the thread was
> the statement below that I took as the writer's desire to change that
> position.
> 
> 
> 
> requirement (e.g. Dell VL-Bus suit), it would not satisfy the spirit
> of the request.  That is, in order for a WG to make an intelligent
> the decision on the technology (it is understood that companies will
> not always be willing or able to give pointers to the specific
> location of the claim, or the claim may still be pending, so the
> information cannot be expected to be perfect).

I think her goal is admirable, at least, but that working on it should
wait until after we finish "clarification".
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg