Subject: IPR disclosures for individual submissions

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:23:36 -0500

Hi.

I'd appreciate some help on how to handle IPR disclosures for
individual documents.

First, I'd like to understand how this is to work in a WG because
there seems to be disagreement among at least two IESG members about
how this works.

It was my impression that WGs actually needed to discuss IPR claims
against their documents and that they needed to make a decision the
IPR was acceptable.

Another IESG member believes it is sufficient to file the disclosure
and if no one brings up the issue in the WG then there is no problem.

Is it sufficient to simply file a disclosure or should the issue actually be discussed in the WG?

Assuming that a discussion needs to happen in the WG,how should we
handle this for individual submissions?
Here are some possible options:

* Filing the disclosure is sufficient--if no one bothers to check and
  the ADs don't think there is a problem, then there is no issue.  I
  don't like this option because I don't think many people check IPR
  disclosures and I'd rather have more than just two ADs think about
  the IPR for a spec.

* Call it out in the last call announcement.

* Discuss within the IESG.

Are there other options?  How should this be handled?

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

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:44:50 -0800

Sam
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sam Hartman" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 7:23 AM
Subject: IPR disclosures for individual submissions

>From a Management Process - IMHO yes - the participants need to have some
evidence that the did some diligence on the IP - this also should be a part
of the WG Chair's check off process - that they review the record of the WG
to see if adequate IPR was done for any initiative.

> Is it sufficient to simply file a disclosure or should the issue actually
be discussed in the WG?
I would think it depends on whether the submission is turned over to the
IETF or filed with a claim that the IP rights are 'undefined' or 'unknown'

The reason being is that the process of doing this diligence reinforces the
transfer under the terms as listed.

>   the ADs don't think there is a problem, then there is no issue.

Depends on how legally enforceable the filing process is I would think.

> I

But hasn't the rule has always been that you do formal diligence if you plan
to use the IP??? So the only reason the IETF should be worried about is if
it is licensing the IP outward on a different set of terms. I.e that it is
doing proper diligence on submissions to the Trust and that per se is the
Trust's issue to resolve, i.e. How much diligence is part of its "standard
of care" that it puts forth on each IP Submission prior to becomming
contractually bound to protect that IP...

> Are there other options?

Sure - set a reasonable-diligence model that must be met in any filings that
convey rights to the IETF or the Trust - if they contain proprietary IP and
that is noted publicly, then there should be no issue in needing further
diligence unless your entity plans formally to pick that IP up...

>
> How should this be handled?
>
>

As I said, now that there is a trust - the IETF at the minimum needs a
formal trust liaison and that would be the IETF's "IP Master" role - Maybe
one of the lawyers on the list will take that position...

Todd

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:07:01 -0600

The formal rules are reasonably clear: Once the IPR disclosure is filed, 
the responsibility of the person who knows about the IPR is over.

There is no formal statement about who has the responsibility to notice 
that IPR has been filed and make a judgment about whether it matters or 
not; I suspect (using common sense) that this SHOULD be done by the WG 
chair before submission to the IESG in the case of WG submissions, and 
by the AD processing the request-to-publish in the case of individual 
submissions - and discussion should go wherever discussion of technical 
issues with the document goes.

But I do not think that there are words written down anywhere with this 
advice, nor do I think this is current practice.

Note also draft-savola-ipr-lastcall; this was a proposal to tie IPR 
disclosures formally with Last Calls, and was discussed at the genarea 
meeting in November 2004, but the conclusion from that meeting was:

Sense of room

    * Should this draft be adopted as a process the IETF should follow?
      about three people.
    * draft should be removed from consideration? about twenty people.
    * should do something about this problem? almost certainly (applause
      for Pekka)

(this is from http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/04nov/ - good minute-taking!)

I don't have a recollection of this being pursued after that.

                                     Harald

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:22:51 -0500

>>>>> "Harald" == Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes:

    Harald> The formal rules are reasonably clear: Once the IPR
    Harald> disclosure is filed, the responsibility of the person who
    Harald> knows about the IPR is over.
Understood.  I was looking for informal rules about what to do when
IPR is filed.

    Harald> There is no formal statement about who has the
    Harald> responsibility to notice that IPR has been filed and make
    Harald> a judgment about whether it matters or not; I suspect
    Harald> (using common sense) that this SHOULD be done by the WG
    Harald> chair before submission to the IESG in the case of WG
    Harald> submissions, and by the AD processing the
    Harald> request-to-publish in the case of individual submissions -
    Harald> and discussion should go wherever discussion of technical
    Harald> issues with the document goes.

Do you think that typically there should be such discussion even if it
is just "BTW, there was IPR filed but I don't think it matters?"  Or
do you think it is OK for the AD or WG chair to consider the issue and
decide on their authority that the IPR doesn't matter?

    Harald> But I do not think that there are words written down
    Harald> anywhere with this advice, nor do I think this is current
    Harald> practice.

    Harald> Note also draft-savola-ipr-lastcall; this was a proposal
    Harald> to tie IPR disclosures formally with Last Calls, and was
    Harald> discussed at the genarea meeting in November 2004, but the
    Harald> conclusion from that meeting was:

Yes, I was aware of this.  The desire not to call out the trolls is
one of the things that makes this hard.

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:32:41 -0600

> decide on their authority that the IPR doesn't matter?
I'd tend to err on the side of caution, and discuss/mention if I wonder 
about it - a disclosure that says "free for all implementors, all 
purposes, no license required" doesn't seem to require a discussion, but 
most disclosures are more convoluted than that..... but I think it 
should be a judgment call, not a mandatory action. But I'd rather have 
advice from people who've been in the situation than to use my 
imagination about it..... anyone?

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:01:48 -0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: "Sam Hartman" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 6:32 AM
Subject: Re: IPR disclosures for individual submissions

> >     Harald> knows about the IPR is over.

Not if their disclosure of that information is a violation of the owner's
rights to privacy - this is just the beginning - and blunlty Harald - that
you folks dont seem to care about the criminal parts of this matter is
equally disturbing - what is really clear is that ALL of the IETF's
copyrights and the grant processes are written to assume that all the
players are honest and upright - which is an assumption that no-one in their
right mind would blindly make - Its not that there is proof about
impropriety - its that the appearance of any inpropriety would be an issue
as well. So the cost of 'doing business' is to put in place processes that
are slightly stonger than they would need to be to make the issues of
retro-review and questions of propriety not a good venue through which to
attack the IETF.

> >     Harald> issues with the document goes.

So then what gets done about someone who wrongfully posts a notice of IPR? -
What happens when that IPR is conrolled by privacy legislation where that
person is. Notice all of the IETF's submissions and grant processes seem to
ignore these other issues of location and jurisdiction. For instance the
IETF's documents speak of Copyright Protections - who's CR Laws? - the US'?
the EU? - who's???

> most disclosures are more convoluted than that.....

Actually - that gives the IP away for all purposes and I mean well and
beyond Copyright Protections. This text is a serious problem since in all
other areas the IETF claims it never wanted patent rights which are pretty
clearly included in the phrase "free for all implementors, all purposes, no
license required" - It also may invalidate the entire passage of IP into the
IETF since the IETF and thie WG and the Lawyers here including Mr. Rosen
have said that their intent and the language of the IETF's grants were
pursuant to the republishing rights ONLY - and that is clearly not true
based on this "free for all implementors" language - implementors are not
republishers - they are people reimplementing the technical description into
a formal product or package.

> but I think it

Since Copyrights dont require real human or real-world Entiity names to be
issued to the IETF's mandatory disclosure of an IPR owner is a violation of
that standard I would think ... That means that the whole IPR issue - as to
whether it pertains to just Copyrights or Title 35 Rights beyond that is a
key thing to make this process clean.

How about it Lawyers? Is this good legal practice - or would you like to
formally and on the reacord, provide correction here.

How about Larry - as a practicing IP Attorney - it seems that most of your
retort just went up in smoke by my reading this from Simon...

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:06:38 +0100

...
> imagination about it..... anyone?

I think there's a reason our rules stop at the disclosure,
because the legal advice has always been to keep the IETF out of
the business of judging the validity of the claims, i.e.
to limit discussion to whether or not to change the spec to
avoid the claimed invention. I'd say that it would be strange
for a WG to not discuss that point, but inappropriate to
discuss the validity of the claims in themselves. IMHO.

Also, read RFC 3669.

     Brian

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 13:51:57 -0800

Brian - In response to you

If you notice the goals of the IETF have changed over time and this is what
is reflected in the documents you cite. At one point the only reason for
inducting a IP into the IETF was because the IETF committed to allow it to
be vetted in its WG's - whatever that meant at that point in time.

It also tried with a number of people's input to craft a set or agreements
which would stand up in Courts if challenged and also would allow for the
uses necessary in creating a standard, like reprinting and being able to
accept input from others.

The problem is that over the last few years the number of IETF protocols
actually being granted a Standard has dropped tremendously relative to those
being entered into the IETF for publication as an RFC.

The problem is both with use and valuation and a gross failure of the IETF
to protect its Standard as its key brand offering. That said, all of the
protocols that were 'entered into the IETF for vetting and standardization's
were conveyed to the IETF for the purpose of publishing as a derivative work
of the IETF's Template. The licenses to the submitted materials are worded
in such a general manner it is also impossible to determine what rights
moving forward that the Submitter retains to the Template if any, and they
are also one-way in nature. They are intended to give the IETF a permanent
license to do whatever it wants with the IP it creates as the standard and
in fact uses the specific language, and not for the original purpose of
creating a global standard.

So now that the IETF has no responsibility to do anything with a submission
and the ownership and the transfer of the existing IP is flawed at the
least... what does the IETF plan to do?

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
To: "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Sam Hartman" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: IPR disclosures for individual submissions

> the business of judging the validity of the claims,

But if its actions are formally constrained by those issues, then keeping
ones head in the sand when you know that makes you doubly liable.

>  i.e.

The problem is that if the claims are not valid then the acting on them is
adversarial to some party - likely the party doing the work too.

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:23:14 -0600

Todd,

alteration of the IETF's approach to labelling documents on the 
standards track is not the IPR WG's business.
This is on the charter of the NEWTRK WG.

Your posting is offtopic for the IPR WG (as well as being, as far as I 
can tell, wrong).

                        Harald

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:49:15 -0800

So then Harald - how is it that IP centric issues are not addressed in the
IPR WG? Oh that's right - you and your partner purposfully wrote them out of
the CHARTER to allow you to only work on what your team already wanted to
work on instead of what the process really needs.

Seems to me that this is another game in creating a WG that represents to
the World by its title that it does address these IPR issue as part of the
IETF's demonstrating it does have proper governance, and then we as the
participants get the slam from you on 'that you as the WG Chair are
exercising that your personal WG will not deal with all IPR issues, but only
the ones you personally want to allow"  - they call this bait and switch in
the real world.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Brian E Carpenter" <>; "Sam Hartman" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: IPR disclosures for individual submissions

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:19:22 -0600

> the ones you personally want to allow"  - they call this bait and switch in
You have failed to demonstrate that you are raising an IPR issue.