Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipr-trademarks-00.txt

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 18:40:15 -0500 (EST)

Simon sez:
> My proposal would include the (preferred) option of not adding (tm)
> and (r), or trademark acknowledgments, at all. 

that option (though not marked as prefered) is in the Internet-Draft already

Scott

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

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 00:56:33 +0100

> that option (though not marked as prefered) is in the Internet-Draft already

Right.

However, the draft also permit trademark identifiers, without a IPR
statement:

   If no statement has been filed with the IETF about a term or phrase
   that is marked in a contribution as a trademark or service mark it
   is reasonable to assume that references to the term or phrase in
   product text, documentation and advertising material is permitted
   but that using the term or phrase as the name of a product requires
   permission from the holder of the mark.

Dropping that paragraph is the entirety of my proposal.

Given the misunderstandings, I obviously must have failed in
explaining what my proposal is.  Perhaps it is more clear now?

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 18:59:36 -0500 (EST)

> However, the draft also permit trademark identifiers, without a IPR

yup

> I obviously must have failed in

seems to be clear to me (not saying I agree though :-) )

Scott