Subject: clarification of blanket statement text

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:59:08 -0500

I'd like to discuss this at the meeting.  If necessary I can write up
a small draft based on the results of discussion.  It's within scope
of the current charter.

In RFC 3668 6.4.3, it says:

   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.

RFC 3668 explicitly says "royalty-free".
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/DYNAMICSOFT-SIMPLE.txt uses that term,
but consider
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-salowey-tls-ticket.txt,
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/hp-mib, and the classic RFC 1822 as
examples that do not say "royalty-free" -- they say the discloser will
"not assert" its patent except under certain specified conditions.

Could the "not assert" terms in those be used in a blanket statement
legitimately according to RFC 3668?  

Thanks ... Scott (Brim)

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

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:19:27 -0800

Scott - Can I ask a really stupid question? - What is the IETF going to do
if someone violates these rules? How will it effect initiatives that are
already completed and any underway at the time. My point is simple, rules
without the teeth to enforce them is a roar with no substance backing it up.

Todd

---

From: "Robert Barr" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:26:09 -0800

I think this would be a useful discussion -- it provides more structure and
purpose to the proposed discussion of "acceptable" defensive clauses. If a
defensive clause in  a free license is "acceptable" then a blanket statement
should be acceptable.
rbarr, zealot 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Scott W Brim
> To: [email-masked]

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:43:34 -0800

Robert - you speak for Cisco here dont you? So what is it that Cisco feels
in important about the control and release of the copyright in this
standards process.

Also - the documents are really toothless and the IESG may want to address
that. I am referring to what happens to something what the fish starts to
smell foul as it were.

Todd

---

From: "Lawrence Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:03:55 -0800

> legitimately according to RFC 3668?

Simple phrases like “not assert” and “royalty-free” cannot possibly
suffice to describe acceptable patent licensing terms for open standards.

Consider the “non-assert” language of IBM’s recent grant of 500 patents
solely for “open source implementations.” Or Sun’s recent royalty-free
grant of 1,600 patents solely for software (like Solaris!) licensed under
its CDDL. Or Microsoft’s royalty-free grant of rights to its Sender ID
patents on terms otherwise unacceptable to the GPL, Apache and other open
source licenses. Or Cisco’s non-assert patent grant that places other
companies’ patents at risk through its “defensive termination” clause.

These are *all* examples of encumbrances upon the free exercise of patent
rights. Clarifying which are legitimate and which not is the function of an
IETF patent policy. We don’t currently have a policy that does that.

As for the scope of the charter of the IPR WG, if the charter doesn’t
include an opportunity to address these issues completely, any tinkering
with current language as has been done on this list in recent weeks is an
utter waste of energy and time.

Regards,

/Larry Rosen

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, technology law offices (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242  ●  fax: 707-485-1243
Author of “Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom
               and Intellectual Property Law” (Prentice Hall 2004)

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Scott W Brim

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 17:20:27 -0500

On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 02:03:55PM -0800, Lawrence Rosen allegedly wrote:
> > Could the "not assert" terms in those be used in a blanket
> > statement legitimately according to RFC 3668?
> 
> Simple phrases like ?$B!Hnot assert?$B!I and ?$B!Hroyalty-free?$B!I
> cannot possibly suffice to describe acceptable patent licensing
> terms for open standards.

That's not relevant to the question I asked, Larry.  Are those terms
included in the intention of the cited rfc3668 paragraph, where it
talks about blanket statements for licenses which are "royalty-free"
(with other explicit terms)?  In previous discussion I believe we
concluded that "no license required" was generally considered easier
for a WG to deal with than "royalty-free", but this paragraph only
mentions the latter.

---

From: "Lawrence Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:05:22 -0800

Scott Brim wrote:
> That's not relevant to the question I asked, Larry.  

I know that I didn't answer the question you asked. My point was that you
(and some others here) keep asking irrelevant questions! Quit tinkering with
the present policy and fix what's needed.

> In previous discussion I believe we

I don't know how you can conclude, based upon the discussions that have
raged on this list for more than a year, that "we concluded" anything of the
sort.

Neither "no license required" nor "royalty-free" is acceptable by itself.
The previous discussion did not resolve anything at all. The attempt by some
here to foreclose meaningful discussion about basic IPR policy is obviously
not working.

Does it surprise you that so many patent grants filed with IETF are
impossible to understand and to evaluate? That all companies, including your
own, aren't quite sure what they're getting when they adopt IETF standards?
Nuanced patent declarations filed with IETF that identify no specific
patents and promise nothing of importance with relation to them are
meaningless. The fact that the IETF IPR policy allows such crap is an
invitation to disaster. 

Does using the word "crap" make me a zealot?

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen

> From: Scott W Brim [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 2:20 PM
> To: Lawrence Rosen
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: clarification of blanket statement text
>

---

From: "Robert Barr" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:23:55 -0800

No 

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 3:05 PM
> To: 'Scott W Brim'
> Cc: [email-masked]

---

From: "Robert Barr" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 17:55:03 -0800

No I speak for myself here, just like everyone else, unless otherwise noted.

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of todd glassey
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 1:44 PM
> To: [email-masked]; 'Scott W Brim'; [email-masked]
> > I think this would be a useful discussion -- it provides 
> more structure
> and

---

From: "George T. Willingmyre" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:53:58 -0500

Scott and Robert:

Is there a     date and time set for a WG meeting in Minneapolis?

I would like to hear from some attorney what are the implications of
"not-asserting" a patent except in certain circumstances compared to
"offering a license on royalty free basis" but with other RAND conditions

Are they simply different paths to arrive at the same destination?  Or are
there legal nuances?

A side question is for anyone to reply help me understand what is meant by
the sentence in the HP letter of assurance at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/hp-mib

"Such grant of rights is limited in that it does not
   include a right to incorporate such HP search address technology into
   proprietary MIB modules"

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

---

From: "Robert Barr" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:21:43 -0800

> From: George T. Willingmyre [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 10:54 AM

>\
Yes IASA and while there may be other distinctions, my purpose in using a
non-assert vs a license in IETF statements is to avoid the need for an
agreement with anyone and everyone who wants to implement the standard. This
seems to be in the interest of all concerned. 
But for purposes of the blanket statements, there should be no distinction
and the question becomes whether a defensive suspension provision qualifies
as   " any other terms
   and conditions are disclosed in the IPR disclosure statement."  (sec
6.4.3) for purposes of 3668, ie is it still royalty free for purposes of
that section, which reads:

"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."

It is interesting that several companies have submitted blanket RAND (not
RF)  statements and they remain prominently displayed on IETF website. This
is clearly inconsistent with 6.4.3  when it says:

"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. "

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:42:40 +0100

--On 17. februar 2005 11:21 -0800 Robert Barr <[email-masked]> wrote:

> RF)  statements and they remain prominently displayed on IETF website.
> This is clearly inconsistent with 6.4.3  when it says:
>

Agreed - these companies will have to continue to make specific IPR 
statements. Making such statements is consistent with the RFC, and provides 
information to the IETF community - which I think is a Good Thing - but 
they do not lessen the requirement on the companies that make them.

                           Harald

---

From: "Robert Barr" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 08:32:33 -0800

> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 7:43 AM
> To: [email-masked]; 'George T. Willingmyre'; 'Scott W Brim'; 
> [email-masked]
They should be marked non-compliant, as is done with other types of
statements. Why is it consistent w RFC?? The excerpt above says "requirement
not satisfied"

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:04:51 +0100

--On fredag, februar 18, 2005 08:32:33 -0800 Robert Barr <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> statements. Why is it consistent w RFC?? The excerpt above says
> "requirement not satisfied"

As I interpret it, they satisfy the formal requirements for a disclosure, 
but do not satisfy the (more strict) requirement for a disclosure that 
allows the filer to not file any more disclosures.

Scott and Jorge will probably chime in if I got that one wrong.

---

From: "Robert Barr" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:45:29 -0800

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 9:05 AM

they don't satisfy this formal requirement:

6.4.  What must be in a disclosure?

6.4.1.  .... The disclosure must also list the
   specific IETF or RFC Editor Document(s) or activity affected.  If the
   IETF Document is an Internet-Draft, it must be referenced by specific
   version number. ..

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 19:51:47 +0100

You're right.

I think this proves that we were not reading RFC 3668 when we wrote it.

What do you suggest that we do about it?

---

From: "Robert Barr" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 19:44:20 -0800

I don't see any value (not A Good Thing) in allowing blanket RAND
statements (particularly if we all agree they are ineffective) and I
definitely WAS reading rfc3668 when we wrote it .
I do think we need clarification on whether "free with defensive suspension"
qualifies for blanket statement.

> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 10:52 AM