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

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 20:49:01 -0500 (EST)

Simon sez:
> My point is this: Identifying and acknowledging trademarks waste time,

that could easily be and I hope that nothing in my ID hinted that
this should be done.

my ID was trying to deal with the case where someone *wanted* to
note that a term or phrase was a trade or service mark - I expect
the most likely case would be when the author (or the author's company)
claimed the mark and wanted to be sure that people knew that

Scott

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

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 21:04:43 -0500

In message <[email-masked]>, Scott Bradner write
>claimed the mark and wanted to be sure that people knew that

This is indeed the problem we need to solve.  3667 permits such 
acknowledgment; when the issue came up in the secsh WG, we found that 
the language wasn't clear enough.

		--Prof. Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:00:48 +0100

> that could easily be and I hope that nothing in my ID hinted that

Going through efforts to make it easy to add trademark identifiers to
documents could be interpreted as a suggestion to do it.

Perhaps the document could clarify that trademark identifiers are not
required nor necessary in general?

> claimed the mark and wanted to be sure that people knew that

Understood.

My position is that this case should be permitted only if the party
that wants this filed an IPR statement.

Compare patents, another form of IPR.  Patent statements aren't
permitted in documents, without an IPR statement, right?

Thanks,
Simon