Subject: Re: comment on draft-ietf-ipr-template-00.txt

From: "Valerie See" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 10:11:12 -0700

Keith - thanks for the comments, again responding for the template
team....

On Wed, May 14, 2003 Keith Moore wrote:

> 1. reference to 2119 is not appropriate.  2119 is for protocol
> specifications that have implementation requirements.  anyway, none of
> those keywords appears in this document.
>

[vsee] thanks, will delete it (it was just an artifact of the 3285
template).

> 2. the template has a space for an I-D or RFC identifier, but no space
> for disclosure of patents related to things informally discussed in a
WG
> or otherwise.  I would not want this document to give the impression
> that there is no obligation on participants to disclose patents that
> relate to IETF discussions merely because they don't appear in an I-D
> yet.  (granted that if a patent application is so far unpublished this
> makes it hard for the patent applicant to specify what things might
> infringe on the patent if granted, without disclosing the invention)

[vsee] as we'd discussed this amongst ourselves, we think that the
"other
designation" field provides this capability.

>
> 3. in section V, the first option is "No License" which seems 
> imprecise.  In my understanding, license is always required to use a
> patented invention.  So I suggest that the wording of this option be
> changed, or that the option be removed.  As far as I can tell there
are
> two kinds of "free" licenses - blanket licenses which are provided for
> anyone who wishes to agree to the conditions, and licenses which
require
> a signed agreement but which still cost nothing.  I'm not sure it's
> worth our trying to split this particular hair.

[vsee] There may be cases where the owner of an invention will not ask
people to take a license (at all) to use it. So I would suggest keeping
the "no license" selection based on this fact and other feedback
we'd gotten prior to sending the draft out.

> 
> 4. it needs to be possible to disclose patent terms of protocols
> that aren't (currently) on the standards track, yet the text assumes
> standards-track documents only.  an experimental or informational 
> document might be a work in progress with potential for later
> standardization.   a patent holder can impose any conditions it
> wishes.  but we should not presume that the kind of conditions
> imposed will require that the document be standardized.

[vsee] I may have alluded to this in replies to other comments, but
here's the understanding that we worked from when we drafted the
template:

There are two statements that this form allows people to make.

a. Disclosure of patents with claims necessary for implementation 
of a technology (applicable for any / all IETF documents, and an
obligation for all documents)

b. For standards track documents - a statement with regard to your
intent with respect to licensing. (You can make these for any document,
but you'll only be asked by the IESG for them for standards track
docs).

a) is an obligation for all docs. b) is not a formal obligation for
any documents, but you will be asked for this by the IESG if you have 
disclosed patents that read on a standards track document and you
haven't already submitted such a statement. You can make licensing
commitment statements with respect to any IPR disclosure, however.

thanks again,

-- Val (and the template team)
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 13:25:33 -0400

> > 2. the template has a space for an I-D or RFC identifier, but no
> > space for disclosure of patents related to things informally
> > discussed in a WG or otherwise.  I would not want this document to
> > give the impression that there is no obligation on participants to
> > disclose patents that relate to IETF discussions merely because
> > they don't appear in an I-D yet.  (granted that if a patent
> > application is so far unpublished this makes it hard for the patent
> > applicant to specify what things might infringe on the patent if
> > granted, without disclosing the invention)
> 
> "other designation" field provides this capability.

perhaps, but I don't think it's clear to the reader that it's
appropriate to use this template to disclose such discussions, or how to
use this template to do so.

> > are two kinds of "free" licenses - blanket licenses which are
> > provided for anyone who wishes to agree to the conditions, and
> > licenses which require a signed agreement but which still cost
> > nothing.  I'm not sure it's worth our trying to split this
> > particular hair.
> 
> people to take a license (at all) to use it. So I would suggest
> keeping the "no license" selection based on this fact and other
> feedback we'd gotten prior to sending the draft out.

I strongly disagree.  without a license of some kind from the patent
holder, the implementor has no protection at all from the threat of
patent litigation.  "no license" is simply not appropriate language to
describe the case where a patent holder agrees to license his invention
to anyone without a signed agreement.  some other wording is necessary.

Keith