Subject: RE: last call on draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-05.txt

From: "Ling, Hung C (Hung)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 13:29:04 -0400

Comment on <draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-05.txt>

In section 5  "Definitions", the term "Covers" or "Covered" is defined as:

   "Covers" or "Covered" mean that a valid claim of a patent or a patent
      application in any jurisdiction or a protected claim, or any other
      intellectual property right, would necessarily be infringed by the
      exercise of a right (e.g., making, using, selling, importing,
      distribution, copying, etc) with respect to an Implementing
      Technology.

1) The phrase "valid claim" requires some explanation.  A claim is "valid" when a court determines that.  Most of the time, claims have not been interpreted or judicially tested.  Accordingly, perhaps the word "valid" should be eliminated.

2) The claims in patent applications can and often do change as the application is prosecuted.  Accordingly, Implementing Technology "covered" at a particular time could be otherwise at a different time.  An additional sentence to explain this should be included, such as "It should be recognized that the claims of a patent application may change before it becomes a issued patent."

3) The phrase "protected claim" is not widely used, and should be explained.

4) To be even clearer, the phrase "necessarily" could be expanded to "necessarily and unavoidably"

5) Is it better to say "Technology being Implemented" than "Implementing Technology"?

Hung Ling

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Bellovin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 12:19 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: last call on several documents

It's time for a working group last call on the three charter-mandated 
documents:

	draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-04.txt
	draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-05.txt
	draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-03.txt

Does anyone have any final change requests for these documents?  (Note:
given that the charter calls for these documents to clarify the 
current IPR policy; objections to them on the grounds that they don't
call for RF are out of scope.)

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)

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