Subject: Fw: #1197 Re: ISSUES How IP is input and Intent...

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 09:28:51 -0800

Harald - in response to your posting - what makes you think that "the deal"
that SOB's RFC3978 and RFC3979 setup will hold up in court? - I am betting
it wont.

By the way - why is  it that people submit things to the IETF anyway? - to
give that protocol away? to spend millions of dollars on wasted Standards
Efforts when the IETF WG Chairs and the IESG are really the last words in
whether a Standard is issues???, and all of this with no oversight???  -- 
No -- they participate here because they are interested in open-development
of an interoperable protocol based on the Internet's TCP or any of its
higher or lower level related protocols and for no other reason. The intent
in participating is not to make the IETF's management rich or create a
process for its continued employment, its to allow an individual or entity
to submit and propagate a standards attempt.

And gee -  Commercially and in Academic situations, there are millions of
dollars spent per each initiative on the line here - this is 2006 and not
1974. So when one initiative is prevented by a group of participants in a WG
from advancing, I have to ask "how is this not a conspiracy to cause
financial damage through technologies" - ever read the claim requirements
for the Economic Espionage Act  here in the US - its amazing reading and
really does apply here to the IETF and the damages it causes to people and
entities trying to get an independent Internet Standard setup.

More inline below

--On 16. February 2006 12:12 +0100 Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>> Filed as #1197. I believe Scott Bradner's draft is intended to address
>>> the mechanism for assigning or licensing IPR to the IETF.
>>
> >I agree that Scott's mechanism sufficiently solve this issue.

I dont - the IP is being transferred exclusively to the IETF since there are
no continuing rights to the use of the IETF's property - its templates,
which remain with the Submitter.  That by US Law requires a wet signature -
there is NO WAY to get around this.

>>
>> There is a problem if the IETF would have to stand up in court to
>> defend ownership of an RFC.

Amen to that - who would pay for Jorge's time and billing?  and by the way
would he be defending the original non-IETF contributed content or the
Derivative work?

>> The contributors have not signed a
>> copyright disclaimer, so the IETF would have to spend time explaining
>> that they actually own the copyright on the published documents.

Um...I would disagree and say that its my understanding of the law that is
in a situation like this, that the IETF would actually only have to
demonstrate that its workflow process dealt with the proper notifications
and that the proper approvals at all levels were obtained from the IP Owners
(aka "the Stakeholders") per US law.

The problem is that it (the IETF) cant even do this. Is this correct Jorge?

>  If
> the contributor would have signed papers transferring the copyright,
> there would be less cause for confusion.

AMEN... and the conveyance would be binding... the problem is how to
accomplish this since the identity of the person signing the work and their
entitlement to the IP and the ability to convey it is still unverified.

> As written, Scott's document does NOT propose transferring copyright; it
> proposes licensing the right to make derivative works.
> Yes, the combination of a copyright statement naming an IETF-related body
> and a non-transfer of copyright makes my head hurt too....

Then its my feeling that the IETF cannot issue a Standard because there is
no way to separate the Title 17 rights from the Title 35 rights. They are
bound at the hip through USC. This also creates a damage claim for those
that participated in the IETF's processes to date I would think.

> However, I don't see the IETF caring enough about this principle.

me neither!

> There is a tradition of ignoring copyright infringements (witness the
> Sun getadddrinfo example).  It doesn't seem to be in the interests of
> the IETF to defend its copyright license on documents strongly.

Then under US Law it seems that the IETF is abandoning the copyright
protections it demanded in the filing. The issue here is that means that all
of "the investors" - those that contributed the ability to the IETF to
publish their derivative submissions, now have yet another damage claim
against the IETF... At the fiduciary level at least anyway.

>> The
>> IETF doesn't seem to have little to gain from causing problems for
>> anyone re-using IETF documents against the RFC 3978 license.  Btw,
>> this also argue for selecting a permissive license.

> Under the 3978 terms, we don't have a copyright to defend, except
copyright
> in the boilerplate, so it kind of makes sense not to defend the rest....

Uh - then there is a breach of the contract between the IP Submitter who the
IETF has agreed to defend that IP hence the public statement of Copyright
belonging to the IETF and not the Submitter in the IETF's publication.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: "Simon Josefsson" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 3:47 AM
Subject: Re: #1197 Re: ISSUES How IP is input and Intent...

> _______________________________________________
> 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: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 09:28:51 -0800

More inline below

me neither!

copyright

Todd Glassey