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

From: "Valerie See" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 14:48:07 -0700

On Thu, May 15, 2003, Keith Moore wrote:

> > > 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 application is so far unpublished this makes it hard for the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.
> 
> 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.

[vsee] We'll work on making this clearer in the explanatory text in the
next draft.

> > > 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.
>
> 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.

[vsee] hmm... we've gotten other feedback that if the owner of a patent
says a license isn't required, it would seem to be pretty definite...
but if there is uncertainty on the part of a prospective licensee, one
option open to him/her is that they can always ask the licensor for a 
license even if the licensor has selected the "no license" option.

thanks,

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

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 18:12:09 -0400

> > > ask people to take a license (at all) to use it. So I would suggest
> > invention to anyone without a signed agreement.  some other wording is
> > necessary.
> 

okay...do you have a reliable expert opinion (as in from an IPR lawyer)
about that?  seems to me they are either granting license to use the
invention or they aren't. explicitly saying "no license" while pretending
to grant permission seems like an oxymoron to me.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg