Subject: Re: Resolution: A suggested additional item in IPR disclosure pag es (fwd)

From: "George T. Willingmyre" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 11:40:11 -0500

Curious where the matter of a new check box about terms and conditions for
the disclosure pages stand?

I can see a role for such a box in the generic template form to make it
clear that a disclosure conforms to section 6.4.3 of RFC 3668 - that section
of RFC 3668 says that you have to disclose terms. Perhaps some explanatory
text that mentions this could go next to that new box on the generic
template

But since nothing in RFC 3668 speaks of terms and conditions for the
specific disclosure page, there is the problem that including such a box may
give the message that terms and  conditions are required in some way.  There
are  arguments why such templates that are outside of the "formal
procedures" should very carefully track the procedures that underpin them.
Other wise there can be "requirements creep"  in such forms

George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
GTW Associates
1012 Parrs Ridge Drive
Spencerville, MD 20868
301 421 4138 facsimile 301 421 0977
www.gtwassociates.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George T. Willingmyre" <[email-masked]>
To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>; "Ling, Hung C (Hung)"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: Resolution: A suggested additional item in IPR disclosure pag
es (fwd)

> Harald's December 8 reply to Hung (which I copy below since it was not
> included in this last email)  reassures me in the sense he says that his
> main intention  is to see whether a disclosure meets the requirements of
> 6.4.3.
>
> > Hung,
> >
> > the main intent is to make it possible for a reader of a generic
> disclosure
> > to see whether or not a disclosure conforms to section 6.4.3 of RFC
3668 -
> > that secton of RFC 3668 says that you have to disclose terms. Nothing
new
> > there.
> >
> > Since we were adding machinery that talked about disclosing terms
anyway,
> > my thought was that we should make it simple to disclose terms in both
> > forms, and to give readers assurance that all terms have been disclosed
if
> > that is the case.
> >
> > For those who do not check the new checkbox, nothing is changed.
> >
> >                        Harald
> >
> >
>
> Here is the subject paragraph
>
>
> 6.4.3.  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 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 discloser's willingness
>    to license all of its potential IPR meeting the requirements of
>    Section 6.6 (and either Section 6.1.1 or 6.1.2) to implementers of an
>    IETF specification on a royalty-free basis as long as any other terms
>    and conditions are disclosed in the IPR disclosure statement.
>
> I still have reservations though about Harald's second paragraph reply
>
> > Since we were adding machinery that talked about disclosing terms
anyway,
> > my thought was that we should make it simple to disclose terms in both
> > forms, and to give readers assurance that all terms have been disclosed
if
> > that is the case.
>
> Depending on how the check box appears on the actual patent disclosure
> templates, It may give an impression that T &Cs are "expected" if not even
> "required" for RAND commitments.
>
> In this regard I agree with Robert  Barr's suggestion we have a look at
the
> proposed new templates before they are put to use.  In my opinion it will
be
> important to help a user understand that in one case of checking the
> proposed new box he/she is meeting the requirement in 6.4.3. and in
another
> case of checking the proposed new box he/she is making a completely
> voluntary discloser that is beyond what the procedure requires
>
> From: "Robert Barr" <[email-masked]>
> To: "'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'" <[email-masked]>; "'Scott W Brim'"
> <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 11:57 AM
> Subject: RE: Resolution: A suggested additional item in IPR disclosure
> pages(fwd)
>
>
> > I'd like to see the form as it will look w this proposed change. It
should
> > be consistent w 3668.
>
> George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
> GTW Associates
> 1012 Parrs Ridge Drive
> Spencerville, MD 20868
> 301 421 4138 facsimile 301 421 0977
> www.gtwassociates.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Ling, Hung C (Hung)" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 4:59 AM
> Subject: RE: Resolution: A suggested additional item in IPR disclosure pag
> es (fwd)
>
>
> >
> >
> > --On onsdag, desember 08, 2004 21:09:18 -0500 "Ling, Hung C (Hung)"
> > <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >
> > > arald:
> > >
> > > under RFC 3668 section 6.5, the license information requested is to
> > > select a choice:
> > >
> > >    Specifically, it is helpful to indicate whether, upon approval by
the
> > > IESG for    publication as RFCs of the relevant IETF specification(s),
> all
> > >    persons will be able to obtain the right to implement, use,
> > >    distribute and exercise other rights with respect to an
Implementing
> > >    Technology a) under a royalty-free and otherwise reasonable and
non-
> > >    discriminatory license, or b) under a license that contains
> > >    reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions, including a
> > >    reasonable royalty or other payment, or c) without the need to
obtain
> > >    a license from the IPR holder.
> > >
> > > I believe section 6.4.3 (that you mentioned) deals with the disclosure
> > > requirement to provide information about specific IPR against specific
> > > technology under discussion in the IETF, not about specifc terms in a
> > > RAND license.  A number of people on this list have already commented
on
> > > why it is not possible to provide specific terms.
> >
> > Hung,
> >
> > many people have pointed out many situations in which it is not possible
> to
> > provide specific terms. These people will not check the box.
> >
> > Section 6.4.3 requires you to provide specific terms. Those people who
> > cannot disclose specific terms (for whatever reason) will not be able to
> > use the provision in 6.4.3 that allows them to not file specific IPR
> claims.
> >
> > I still don't see the problem.
> >
> >                 Harlad
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:07:15 +0100

George, it would be an optional box, so I don't see any
requirements creep.

    Brian

---

From: "Scott W Brim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 13:41:28 -0500

Brian E Carpenter <> on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 13:07:

> George, it would be an optional box, so I don't see any requirements
> creep. 
> 
>     Brian
> 
>> Curious where the matter of a new check box about terms and
>> conditions 
>> for the disclosure pages stand?
>> 
>> I can see a role for such a box in the generic template form to make
>> it clear that a disclosure conforms to section 6.4.3 of RFC 3668 -
>> that section of RFC 3668 says that you have to disclose terms.
>> Perhaps 
>> some explanatory text that mentions this could go next to that new
>> box 
>> on the generic template
>> 
>> specific disclosure page, there is the problem that including such a
>> box may give the message that terms and  conditions are required in
>> some way.  There are  arguments why such templates that are outside
>> of 
>> the "formal procedures" should very carefully track the procedures
>> that underpin them. Other wise there can be "requirements creep"  in
>> such forms 

George: RFC3905 is informational and captures the discussion we had about
what should go into a template.  The disclosure web pages were based on it.
Neither it nor disclosure pages have authoritative status -- they are just
tools to help people with disclosure along the lines of 3668.  The
disclosure pages cannot impose requirements not already in 3668, and the
Secretariat seem to understand that quite well.

Personally I believe changes to the web pages are up to the Secretariat, and
that the sleeping IPR WG doesn't need to be involved because no policy
changes are expected -- just tool tweaking.  If the Secretariat isn't sure
whether a change implies policy, they can ask the WG mailing list.

Brian floated a tool tweaking idea on the list and essentially no one took
it up.  A few of us thought it might be tolerable but didn't see added
value.  I don't know if he's been in conversation with the Secretariat, but
they haven't spoken up here.  So from most of us you're seeing benign
neglect.

swb

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 23:34:02 +0100

> the disclosure pages stand?

In the process of being implemented. I will get to review them before they 
go into production, and may ask some other people to review.

> clear that a disclosure conforms to section 6.4.3 of RFC 3668 - that
> section of RFC 3668 says that you have to disclose terms. Perhaps some
> explanatory text that mentions this could go next to that new box on the
> generic template
>
> specific disclosure page, there is the problem that including such a box
> may give the message that terms and  conditions are required in some way.
> There are  arguments why such templates that are outside of the "formal

Yup. I don't believe that optional checkboxes add much of a requirement, 
though. And neither the Web form nor the form suggested in the IPR WG 
document are mandatory (one problem has been that people are submitting 
emailed disclosures and not saying anything about why - the disclosures are 
fine, but I'd like to know their specific reasons for not using the form)

                       Harald

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 08:59:20 +0100

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> In the process of being implemented. I will get to review them before 
> they go into production, and may ask some other people to review.
> 
> emailed disclosures and not saying anything about why - the disclosures 
> are fine, but I'd like to know their specific reasons for not using the 
> form)

The reason for the change I proposed was to provide an option
in the form such that *all* specific information about licensing
conditions is in free-from text, and only the logistics information
(name of company, name of document, etc) is in a fixed format. And the
specific reason for that option was to remove the most likely reason for
not using the form: the fact that it prescribes specific language about
licensing that may not be to the taste of corporate lawyers.

    Brian

---

From: "George T. Willingmyre" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 11:44:49 -0500

Thanks for the status report:

One approach to get at the problem Harald mentions about "non use of the
templates" by those who still use email submissions  could be to include a
line near the top of both forms that the purpose of the form(s) are to
assist IPR holders to  file  disclosures "compliant" with the underpinning
procedures.  Not that the forms are  the  "only" way, but are a convenient
way for filers to assure themselves they are meeting all the  "requirements"
of the IETF procedures

I like the wording in http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3905.txt?number=3905

intent of this document is informational and is not
   meant to suggest that this is the only method that could be used by
   IETF participants for disclosure of patents or for licensing
   declarations.

My main point of principle is that forms (even if not mandatory) should very
carefully track procedures.  When there are elements on such forms that are
"voluntary" or "nice but not essential"  or "optional" then it is a service
to the potential user of that form to let him/her know that. So Harald, I
think it important to help the user of the form know the new check box for
the specific form is truly  "optional"

For example, I like the addition of the proposed note to the generic form in
order to explain why it may be advantageous to check that box

Quote from proposed new text to generic form NOTE: According to RFC 3668
section 6.4.3, unless you check the box above,
and choose either option a) or b), you must still file specific IPR
disclosures as appropriate  end quote

I believe it important to advise someone completing the specific form that
the new item d and check box  proposed are  not a requirement of the IETF
procedures but something that the person completing the form may voluntarily
choose to complete

d) | | See text box below for licensing declaration.  JUST THE ADDITIONAL OF
THIS NEW ITEM D GIVES ME AT LEAST THE EXPECTATION I MAY NOT HAVE COMPLETELY
FILLED OUT THE FORM IF I DID NOT CHECK THIS BOX AND PROVIDE A LICENSING
DECLARATION

[ ] The individual submitting this template represents and warrants that all
   other terms and conditions that must be satisfied for implementers of an
   IETF specification to obtain a license have been disclosed in this IPR
disclosure statement.  THIS WORDING ALSO GIVES ME THE EXPECTATION THAT  THE
FILER OF A FORM IS SOMEHOW NOT FILLING OUT  THE COMPLETE FORM IF THIS BOX IS
NOT CHECKED

One solution to the problem I see would be to add an explanatory  note
similar to the one for the generic form to the specific form.  Text might be
something like

"Note: The check box above is discretionary and is tied to no requirement in
RFC 3668"

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "George T. Willingmyre" <[email-masked]>; "Ling,Hung C (Hung)"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 2:59 AM
Subject: Re: Resolution: A suggested additional item in IPR disclosure pag
es (fwd)

box