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

From: "Valerie See" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 15:48:54 -0700

Robert Barr and Allan Lo (two of the authors) are both attorneys who
deal with these issues as part of their daily jobs - I can't presume
to speak for them directly, but I am reflecting the consensus that 
the group of us authors came to on this point, if that helps.

-- Val

-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Moore [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 3:12 PM
To: Valerie See
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: comment on draft-ietf-ipr-template-00.txt

> > > [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...

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

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 19:09:41 -0400

On Thu, 15 May 2003 15:48:54 -0700

> the group of us authors came to on this point, if that helps.

well, basically I'm just looking for a bit more precision - as far as I can
tell the word "license" can be taken to mean either permission in general,
or a specific instrument.  if the whole point of this template is to make
the terms clear to working groups and/or implementors, seems like we'd do 
well to avoid such ambiguities.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 10:20:21 -0700

So Valerie - lets ask these gentlemen then since they are Attorneys -
doesn't creating any IP process where IP disclosure becomes a formal part of
the IETF effort mean that the IETF has a responsibility that this
information MUST be correct?

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Valerie See" <[email-masked]>
To: "Keith Moore" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 3:48 PM
Subject: RE: comment on draft-ietf-ipr-template-00.txt