Subject: Comments to "draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-03.txt"

From: "Joe Zebarth" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 13:49:17 -0400

This email contains additional comments to the ID on technology
rights and is intended to complement comments made on previous versions of
the current document, e.g. my email of 12/10/2002.  While some of these
previous comments have been addressed, there are others that have not been.
Even though these comments have not been restated here, it is our opinion
that they are still available to the author, are valid, and are worthy of
further consideration as this ID continues to develop.

	"The following comments propose a content change to
"draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-03.txt" to align it with proper practice
and are intended to improve the quality of the current draft.  

	Proposal 1

	Section Para 6.1.1, Para 2

	The paragraph that reads as:
	"This requirement specifically includes contributions that are made
by any means including electronic or spoken comments.  A disclosure should
also be made if the revised contribution negates a previous IPR disclosure."

	should be modified to read as 

	"This requirement specifically includes contributions that are made
by any means including electronic or spoken comments.  A disclosure should
be withdrawn if the revised contribution negates a previous IPR
disclosure.".

	Rationale for proposed change

	This modification is required to align with current practice
concerning IPR disclosures.  Current practice calls for IPR disclosure and
never calls for explicit documentation that states an individual, or
company, does not have relevant IPR.  However, IPR disclosures can be
withdrawn and, this is what this new text calls for.

	Proposal 2

	Section 6.4, Para 2

	This paragraph that reads as 

	"If a disclosure was made on the basis of a patent application then
a new disclosure must be made when the patent is granted, received a final
rejection, or been abandoned.  The new disclosure must include the patent
number and, if the granted patent differs from the application, must state
any differences in applicability to the IETF work." 

	should be modified to read as 

	"If a disclosure was made on the basis of a patent application then
a new disclosure must be made when the patent is granted.  The new
disclosure must include the patent number and, if the granted patent differs
from the application, must state any differences in applicability to the
IETF work.  If a disclosure has been made based on a patent application
which has subsequently been rejected or abandoned, the disclosure should be
withdrawn."  

	Rational for proposed change

	It is appropriate, I think, to make the assumption that IDs will
move forward in a timely fashion and it is early in their infancy when
knowledge about IPR claims is required to assist Working Groups develop
action plans.  However, once these plans are set and the work proceeds, the
working group need only concern itself with new IPR claims until the group
is disbanded.  Parties that file for patents usually only have systems in
place that track when patents are granted, as these are the only ones of
interest.  Given that the time line is such that the period of submission of
application and receiving the patent is usually much greater than the life
of a working group, knowledge of a patent rejection is not useful to a
working group because it is usually disbanded by the time this information
would become available.  Thus, it seems reasonable to soften the requirement
"that action must be taken when patent applications are rejected or
abandoned" to say that it should be taken.  The proposed text also
recognizes that negative disclosures are never made, but that disclosures
may be withdrawn.

	Proposal 3

	Section 6.4 last paragraph

	This paragraph that reads as 

	"Note that the requirement for an IPR disclosure is not satisfied by
the submission of a blanket statement of possible IPR on every contribution.
This is the case because the aim of the disclosure requirement is to provide
information about specific IPR claims against specific technology under
discussion in the IETF.  The requirement is also not satisfied by a blanket
statement of willingness to license all potential IPR under fair and
non-discriminatory terms for the same reason.  However, the requirement for
an IPR disclosure is satisfied by a blanket statement of the IPR claimant's
willingness to license all its potential IPR meeting the requirements of
section 6.6 to implementers of an IETF standard on a royalty-free basis."

	should be modified to read as 

	"Note that the requirement for an IPR disclosure is not satisfied by
the submission of a blanket statement of possible IPR on every contribution.
This is the case because the aim of the disclosure requirement is to provide
information about specific IPR claims against specific technology under
discussion in the IETF.  Such specific IPR, if known, should be supplemented
to a blanket statement of willingness to license all potential IPR."  

	Rationale for change

	The current text makes that assumption that Royalty Free means that
there are no other associated encumbrances or limitations or obligations
that would be placed on the party practicing the IETF standards
specification.  This RF assumption is simply not true in all cases and
appears discriminatory.  Therefore, it is improper to place inconsistent or
impose disparate demands on IPR claimants.

Kindest regards,

Joe Zebarth
Dept. 6L41
ATI Strategic Standards
Nortel Networks (Canada)
Phone: +1 613 765 8481
ESN:    6+395 8481
Fax:     +1 613 763 2697
ESN:    6+393 2697
http://www.nortelnetworks.com