Subject: RE: draft-savola-ipr-lastcall-01.txt

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 09:29:37 -0400

Those two scenarios somewhat defeat the purpose of the 
"new and improved" IPR disclosure
process.  If an IETF participant knows of relevant IPR that his/her company
owns, he/she must disclose it formally.  Likewise, participants who
are aware of relevant third party IPR are encouraged to make a disclosure.
The disclosures can be made on the easy-to-use template that is being
discussed, so it should not be a heavy burden.  However, considering
IPR that is "out there" but not formally disclosed isn't
such a good idea.  If people want to consider it, why not file
a short third party disclosure?

Jorge

-----Original Message-----
From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 9:23 AM
To: Contreras, Jorge
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: draft-savola-ipr-lastcall-01.txt

On Fri, 9 May 2003, Contreras, Jorge wrote:
> In an attempt to make the language of this document consistent
> with that of Scott Bradner's Rights in Technology document, I would
> suggest that the term "claim" (which was thought in the Rights
> in Technology discussion to be confusing) be replaced with the term
> "IPR disclosure".  The reason the word "claim" is confusing is because it
> can apply both to an IPR disclosure made within the IETF process AND
> to a claim of a patent -- two very different concepts.

Looking at the document, does "IPR disclosure" include e.g. someone sayng 
"we have IPR on this" or does it only activate when the disclosure has 
been made formally to the repository?

I also want to refer to IPR "claims" which are publically known but not 
yet filed in the repository.

Is the term OK for that?

Thanks.

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 18:00:30 +0300 (EEST)

On Fri, 9 May 2003, Contreras, Jorge wrote:
> owns, he/she must disclose it formally.  

Incorrect (or I must have misunderstood): he/she must disclosure it *only*
if he makes a contribution, like steps in the mike and discusses the 
subject.

There seem to be two main kinds of scenarios:
 1) companies pre-emptively, before the issue gets discussed, disclose all 
the relevant IPR

 2) companies disclose IPR only when they have to, when a person makes a 
contribution, and therefore must make a disclosure.  In this case it is 
polite for the contributer to state that they have some IPR.

Then the question becomes, must disclose formally *when*?  As soon as
reasonable, IMO.

Depending on the definition of "reasonable", which is subjective, there is 
a window between the contribution and the formal filing.

This memo tries to ensure that the IESG will not last-call documents for 
which "paperwork" ie. formal disclosure has not been made yet.

> a short third party disclosure?

At least the proposed template seems completely useless for third party
disclosures.

It is much more pragmatic to be able to say "we have IPR, *our lawyers*
file later", rather than be quiet until the disclosure is made.  There is
a bit problematic with the 3rd party disclosures, as the original party
may be unwilling for file.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings