Subject: Resolution of tickets 1197, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 17:46:04 -0600

After discussing with legal counsel, and reviewing the list with the WG 
at the IETF meeting, I suggest the following resolution of these issues 
raised by Todd Glassey:

#1197: How is intellectual property transferred or licensed to the IETF?
- There is no assignment of copyright. There is a non-exclusive license.
- Such a license does not require an ink signature.
- The IETF does not get any rights to any patents.

#1240: Legal review of BCP 78 3.3 needed?
This section was extensively reviewed by multiple lawyers before RFC 
publication. No more review is needed.

#1241: Does BCP 78 3.3.a(e) give away all rights to the IP involved?
Patent rights are not affected by BCP 78 3.3.a(E). Furthermore, this 
section applies only to "code".
So the answer is "no".

#1242: Do BCPs require different IPR procedures than other RFCs?
The IETF defines what an IETF BCP is and how BCPs are supposed to be 
handled.
There has been no determination in the IETF that there is a reason to 
handle IETF BCPs different from other documents.

#1243: What are the qualifications of the Trustees of the IETF Trust?
Their sole required qualification is that they are members of the IAOC, 
as defined in BCP 101.

#1244: How is oversight and respect going to be enforced?
There are documented IETF processes, including the appeals process from 
RFC 2026.
This is not an IPR issue.

Unless we hear comments from other participants than Todd before March 
31, 2006 (one week from today), the chairs will close these issues as 
needing no further attention from the IPR WG. Attempts to reopen these 
issues without supplying new relevant information after this date will 
be treated as an offtopic posting.

Regarding #1239: "Understanding intent of participants", this is 
awaiting a clarification of terminology from the lawyer.

                         Harald, for the IPR WG chairs.

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

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:20:06 -0800

Harald -

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:46 PM
Subject: Resolution of tickets 1197, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244

> section applies only to "code".

Then the legal advice you got came from a banana slug - since Programs and
their work flow is specifically patentable as Software Patents... Sorta like
NTP's for the RIM Deal.

> The IETF defines what an IETF BCP is and how BCPs are supposed to be

Then YOU CANNOT use an industry term (BCP) to mean something its not.  This
IETF doesn't get to reinvent things to suit what and how you want to limit
them, when the rest of the world already has an understanding that a BEST
CURRENT PRACTICE means 'current' and that has liabilities.

> handle IETF BCPs different from other documents.

 Typical of this management team.

> Their sole required qualification is that they are members of the IAOC,

Which means they are accountable to the trust and since they have never
managed IP or built an IP Process valuation model or done anything in
protecting the IETF's IP why would anyone in the real world have any faith
in the Trust or its competence?

> This is not an IPR issue.

Yes it is - You want to make the rules - fine - then make them ALL  since
this is where IP specific issues are addressed in this IETF evidently.