Subject: ISSUE - Submission Release Failures... - The Syslog Example.

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 06:00:26 -0800

ISSUE - (You guys crack me up)...

The Solution:
---------------------------
Lets have this guy evaluate the IP release process - he wrote the book on
online IP releases for NOLO Press...
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/stim.html

If he says its good then you are fine - want to bet on what he would say?

The Problem
-------------
"Owning your own words about someone else's property does not convey
ownership of anything other than those words to a 3rd party licensing them
from the you. Further your writing words about someone else's property for
your employer doesn't make the underlying IP the property of your
employer..."

I am not a Lawyer, and neither are most of the other players here including
all of the management of this WG, so the failure or refusal to get these
questions answered by competent legal professional's on the record clearly
demonstrates that this IETF management doesn't care about law or process,
and that the WG Chairs are working to keep legal opinions that would damage
their operations claims out of the IETF's public records.

What apparently  they (this WG's Chairs and the IETF) care about is keeping
the IETF as strong as possible whether it means to continuing to break the
law or not.  The problem is here that for this IETF the submission model
will be criminal at some point in my opinion ... let me explain:

In this IETF - An individual person writes a document and then submits it to
the IETF assuring the IETF that they indeed personally have a license to
submit this IP, or that they have some formal written release that allows
them to legally represent the owner of the IP in public forums.

The IETF claims "no diligence is necessary" on its submissions
--------------------------------------------------------------
The IETF's reaction to this assurance in its release forms is to claim this
is all the diligence necessary in transferring exclusive rights to the IETF
for that publication.  The IETF further claims that this is a non-exclusive
conveyance but in fact that is a lie... and I am asserting that I believe
that this lie is the basis of the IETF's claiming it doesn't need to do
anything further with its IP release and submission's/induction process.

The IETF's Process lies about whether it is exclusive or not
-----------------------------------------------------------
Another key issue is that the submission model is in fact exclusive no
matter what the copyright statement is setup to say. Another nail in
documenting the criminal (i.e.. intending to steal the IP) intentions of the
authors here.

In fact the IETF's publication of the I-D and the RFC documents in its
standards process is an exclusive transfer of the submitters rights to the
submission which constitutes the IETF's Templates and the Submitter's
Content IP. No rights remain with the individual to the IETF's Templates and
so the transfer is one way and exclusive no matter what SOB and the managers
of the IPR-WG want to put in a bunch of worthless IP paperwork designed to
cloud the issues.

The framing and controlling of the IETF's copyrights to the template and the
IETF's TM  is all that is needed to document that the IETF in fact has IP in
the mix and it is not licensing that IP to the Submitter so this is an
exclusive conveyance to the document published. Further since BCP78 3.3.a(E)
gives any and all rights to the text in English as the description of the
algorithm or in a programming language (i.e. code)  used therein,

>From my experience with today's IETF release process model this assurance is
boilerplate in the submission agreement, and there is no process to
demonstrate intentional agreement to those terms and conditions beyond the
mailing of a unauthenticated document to the Editor's Email Address.

The IETF performs no diligence on submissions
------------------------------------------------
Once received by the Editors, there is no diligence performed that anyone in
the real world would have to do when acquiring rights. whether exclusive or
not, to any IP.

The IETF of today assures proper legal releases are in place by the
submission process alone, and it never verifies anything about the
submissions.  That means no diligence is now performed to assure that the
IETF can publish without violating other's IP Rights.

Since the IETF performs no Diligence on what
it publishes it has liability therein.
-----------------------------------------------
Since there is NO DILIGENCE performed by the IETF other than reviewing the
forms submitted - it clearly would be responsible for any damages that the
failing to perform that diligence caused... This is simply referred to as a
'reasonable standard of care'.

Conscious Knowledge invalidates the release
----------------------------------------------
Under the Standard of Care requirements, lets take this farther - The IETF
'knows' that in most instances these individuals submitting document's are
design engineers or systems and network or Data Center managers at various
companies that subsidize these Employee's Development by paying for their
Attendance to the IETF Meetings and their participation in the IETF mailing
lists for Career Development and for no other purposes.  Check their tax
reports I assure you this is true in most all instances.

And based on that, and their being no power-of-attorney release on file
anywhere for these people,  the individuals submitting these documents today
in most instances actually  DO NOT REPRESENT THEIR SPONSORS LEGALLY
SPEAKING. In the instance of the IETF Conference Attendance, they are sent
by their sponsors to IETF meetings and allowed to participate in IETF
mailing lists to specifically increase their value to the Sponsor by
learning more - not by giving the Sponsor's IP away as in RFC3978's Section
3.3.a(E).

The problem with the IETF's submission model is that it facilitates a
criminal act - fraud by wire - in that it allows third parties to claim they
own the core underlying IP that they are writing about  without having to
prove it - there is no diligence on the IETF's part in documenting its right
to publish...

The effect of this it that it allows anyone to claim they have and thus
convey those rights to the underlying IP  in a submission to the IETF, and
to do so by their own hand...  except in most all instances - those
individuals dont hold those rights, and anyone that looks at them as
third-party authors knows that - further arguably this then becomes is a
conspiracy between the IETF the managers of the IPR-WG and Scott Bradner -
the principal author and editor of the BCP78 and BCP79 documents to violate
US Copyright and IP Conveyance Law.

And if its not - then what exactly is going on here??? - a bunch of
technologists insisting that they know best without public legal opinion to
back them up? So far I assert that is 100% of what is happening.

Hey - Jorge - wanna provide that public legal opinion??? (the sound of
silence here in your response is deafening) - I didn't think so!.

My understanding of representation-law is that the formal conveyance of the
Power of Attorney cannot reliably be consummated over an un-authenticated
email transport in this Country that I know of. It just doesn't work - so
there MUST be some process or a written document somewhere between the
Conveyor and the Submitter, or between the submitter and the IETF, in that
they have committed to the IETF to convey all interests per BCP78's
3.3.a(E).

In fact Richard Stim Esq. of UCSF and Stanford's Law School disagrees with
you and has published a book on the subject of on-line IP Conveyance since
it is complex and needs positive legal control of the works being licensed.

Fraud By wire - opens the IETF to RICO claims
-------------------------------------------------
And as such, I believe that the submitters to the IETF have committed a
number of both civil and criminal acts in the US including "Fraud By Wire"
which in turn opens the IETF to RICO Corruption Claims for those Frauds By
Wire.

The IETF's current model encourages IP Theft
-----------------------------------------------
The problem with the current model is that the IETF encourages this
conveyance of IP not owned by the conveyors, and intentionally looks the
other way making it a party of the first-part to any frauds committed by the
Filer and the IETF against the actual owners of the IP published.

The "Theft of Syslog..."
------------------------
The obvious example is Syslog - which in the Syslog instance, the real
copyright holder would be BSD and not Cisco or any of those other
individuals outside of or not empowered by BSD to work and to revise their
(BSD's) copyright statement on a released product (Syslog) since it would
change their copyright's propagated to any and all who depended on that
IP... including those that use Syslog in production from Sun, HP, IBM, the
other *IX providers and everyone else using Syslog like Cisco etc.

Historically speaking, an individual outside of BSD and no retained by BSD,
but rather sponsored by an interested 3rd party - Cisco, and as an employee
of Cisco and without apparently a release from BSD - wrote and submitted a
draft to the IETF which modeled Syslog - the problem is that this individual
unless they had a release  from BSD to formally change BSD's copyright -
committed an act of Fraud By Wire when they turned over all of BSD's rights
to the Protocol to the IETF - which they legally had no possible legal
status to do so.

The IETF's Editors further missed this  and in publishing the Syslog Drafts
altered the BSD Copyright statement which is incompatible with the IETF's
which functionally gives the protocol away per the text of RFC2026 and
specifically RFC3978's section 3.3.a(E).

If you can demonstrate why I am wrong - then please do - and as an open
invitation to the Attorney's on this list - I am surprised none of you
including Jorge modeled the "passing of the rights" in a diagram - the
Swim-lane diagram told me everything I needed to know about who, what, and
where the IP was effectively transferred.

Todd Glassey

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

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 14:44:00 +0100

I am currently entering Todd's issues into the issue tracker.

In this message, I failed to detect an issue I could enter. It's clear 
that Todd is expressing a concern here, but it is not clear to me what 
the concern is, or how to express it as an issue.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:08:10 -0800

The concern Harald  is that "writing a technical document - a literary work
if you will" about something technical that someone else has already
published under a different copyright means that YOU MUST GET PERMISSION
FROM THE ORIGINAL COPYRIGHT HOLDER and not the writer of the document you
want to publish.

If they (the original Copyright holder) allowed derivative licensing then
you may be OK unless there are other copyrights on each of the derivative
code bodies by their copyright holders - so even if you wanted to claim that
CISCO's version of Syslog gave them the right to republish, that would ONLY
BE TRUE IF THE BSD COPYRIGHT was propagated through - which apparently you
folks (the IETF Management) saw to that it was not done here... Further
Cisco's rights would not be enough - you would need another of the Copyright
Holders to buy in to ceded their rights to you - and you still cant get
around that the BSD copyright prevented the IETF from republishing the
Syslog standard unless there was a release from BSD (or whoever the real IP
owner is - Unix Labs etc)

The problem is simple and has to do with respect of others marks, cr's and
patents

Todd Glassey

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 11:20:52 -0600

> The problem is simple and has to do with respect of others marks, cr's and
I now think I understand your issue.

Filed as

 #1245: Does describing a technology require a license from the people 
who originally described it?

and will be addressed together with the others in the meeting on Tuesday.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 13:21:32 -0800

Thanks-

Not that I expect you guys to do anything about these concerns - that also
is another issue - that the IPR WG votes on what it 'thinks' is legal
between a number of individuals who make up the core of this WG... But
that's for another time...

Hey you guys want to bet me how long it takes me to get some formal
Organizational Governance framework like COBIT and real culpable liability
for ones actions forced upon the IETF?

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 9:20 AM
Subject: #1245: Does describing a technology require a license from the
people who originally described it?

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 13:31:18 -0800

Before anyone freaks out at this let me explain - if the IETF is spun off
its management framework will have to answer to some form of oversignt and
that would be implemented through a framework -

And yes Harald I am done posting for the day.

T.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
To: "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>; "todd glassey"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: #1245: Does describing a technology require a license from the
people who originally described it?

> > > code bodies by their copyright holders - so even if you wanted to
claim
> that
> > > Syslog standard unless there was a release from BSD (or whoever the
real
> IP

---

From: "Tom Petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:35:56 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 6:20 PM
Subject: #1245: Does describing a technology require a license from the people

> and will be addressed together with the others in the meeting on Tuesday.

Syslog is probably not a valid example of this issue.  As the syslog charter
says,
"the protocol component of this event logging system has not been formally
documented"
so the syslog WG was set up to document the syslog protocol and then add
security to it.  What the syslog WG has found and documented is that there is no
such protocol, rather many different variants with almost the only common
component being that most of them start with <PRI>.  An IPR claim for syslog
would be a bit like an IPR claim for the concept of 'recording' that covered all
forms of Puff Diddy's output be it on CD, DVD, DAT, MPEG, cassette, LP etc.

Perhaps Todd could find a better example.

Tom Petch

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 09:26:01 -0800

Uh, no Tom the Charter of the Syslog WG is irrelevant to what was formally
published - the actual standard itself is what is flawed... as well as the
submission of the I-D and the RFC's to the IETF. These documents all have a
"copyright statement" on them that is unenforceable since the IETF's
benefactor probably didn't own that IP right to convey it to the IETF...

This is what this is all about. Who owned what and who gave what to the
IETF... because apparently in this instance it was a civilian 3rd party and
not someone employed for or by the IP owner, or anyone legally empowered to
speak for that IP Owner. So unless I am wrong and someone can magically
produce a release, it appears that the person who submitted that draft
probably didn't have USL or BSD's or SCO's or whoever actually owns the IP's
release on it... if they did then the IETF would likely have a trail of
email...

It also appears that the IETF never bothered to formally ask the BSD folks
how they would feel about their license becoming moot based on the IETF's
actions since the IETF's license per RFC2026 gave any and all rights to the
protocol for any and all uses, including products derived from it, something
the IETF has no possible legal right to do that I can document by the
records available now

Todd.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Petch" <[email-masked]>
To: "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>; "todd glassey"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 3:35 AM
Subject: Re: #1245: Does describing a technology require a license from
thepeople who originally described it?

> Subject: #1245: Does describing a technology require a license from the
people
> > > code bodies by their copyright holders - so even if you wanted to
claim that
> > > Syslog standard unless there was a release from BSD (or whoever the
real IP
> security to it.

By who - Syslog was a registered copyrighted part of UNIX by this time and
was wholly owned as such was only made available under the UNIX and BSD
license. This meant that ANYTHING that documented the existing protocol or
standardized it would have to be done under that license since the code
already existed.

By the way - the code- the program and the fact that it clearly
interoperated across any number of systems cleanly meant that there was in
fact huge amounts good Syslog documentation - so what you meant to say is
that there was no IETF ZID or RFC for it - all of which would be
documentation to benefit the IETF... right? And as such its something of
little value to anyone outside the IETF too - since UNIX was already on its
way to being what it is today.

So then the IETF's Syslog WG was done to meet the IETF's needs to expand its
library of IP and... that's why it stole Syslog? - or how would you describe
it Tom???

> What the syslog WG has found and documented is that there is no

Uh No actually it wouldnt - and there are tons of specs for it...

---

From: "Lawrence Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 14:50:57 -0800

> These documents all have a "copyright statement" on them that 
> is unenforceable since....

and

> ...something the IETF has no possible legal right to do....

Let's get a few things straight, Todd. You are wrong and you should stop
spouting such nonsense.

1. An IETF copyright notice is a notice of IETF's claim of copyright, of
whatever scope it might be (17 USC 401). That copyright is *enforceable* (17
USC 501 et seq.). It is independent of any copyrights that might exist in
contributions (17 USC 103(b)). Copyright notices of contributors are not
required (17 USC 404). You may copy IETF's copyrighted documents under
IETF's license; otherwise you are an infringer (17 USC 106).

2. IETF has a *legal right* to claim copyright in the expressive work it
collects into its specifications (17 USC 103(a)). That is independent of any
copyrights that IETF's contributors might claim (17 USC 103(b)). As for
patents, IETF can describe patented technology in its specifications without
infringing those patents--indeed, sometimes without infringing copyright (37
CFR 1.71(d) and (e) and 1.84(s)).

It is up to putative copyright and patent owners, not strangers like Todd,
to enforce copyrights and patents. I think this committee is making great
progress in cleaning up IETF IP policies, and I for one am tired of Todd
filling my inbox and this ipr-wg list with silly hypothetical situations
about which he would have no standing or legal basis in court to complain.
If Todd actually does have an infringement claim against IETF, he apparently
already knows how and where to file it. I request that he put up in court
and shut up here. 

/Larry Rosen

P.S. Todd has been asking for a lawyer to tell him he's wrong. I volunteer.
I'm counting on the rest of you to support me when Todd sues me for
practicing law with a license. :-)

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
Stanford University, Lecturer in Law
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242  *  fax: 707-485-1243

-----Original Message-----
From: todd glassey [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 9:26 AM
To: Tom Petch; Harald Alvestrand; todd glassey
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: #1245: Does describing a technology require a license
fromthepeople who originally described it?

Todd.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:45:27 -0800

Thanks - that's all I asked for Larry ....
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <[email-masked]>
To: "'todd glassey'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 2:50 PM
Subject: RE: #1245: Does describing a technology require a license

> CFR 1.71(d) and (e) and 1.84(s)).

Except that the publication of the technical specification for the protocol
will start the patent clocks ticking based on the public disclosure of prior
art - that currently is unaddressed in IETF process.

> to enforce copyrights and patents.

> I think this committee is making great

Which means that you object to discussion and dissenting opinion. Typical...

> already knows how and where to file it. I request that he put up in court

Larry - bluntly - as an attorney I am shocked that you would not want these
matters clarified and basically it says everything I need to know about you
ethically.

As to shutting up - when this WG deals with the issues at hand or votes not
to deelt with them, then it will be done. That's all it ever had to do. As
to the commentary - you addressed three issues - and not those of the IP
Conveyance and bluntly I am sorry that my pushing back on what this group is
doing upsets your personal initatives - but tough...

And I do disagree with you about the issues of whether the implementation
requirements are covered by the copyrights alone, since those technically
are only for publication and republication. But hey - maybe we should take
this into Court.

---

From: "Tom Petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:47:49 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
To: "Tom Petch" <[email-masked]>; "Harald Alvestrand"
<[email-masked]>; "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: #1245: Does describing a technology require a license from
thepeople who originally described it?

> release on it... if they did then the IETF would likely have a trail of
Can IPR exist when the artifact does not?  I think not, which is why I think
syslog is a bad choice of an exemplar.

syslog, or BSD syslog, are much bandied about terms, but terms with little or no
definite meaning.  The work of the IETF syslog wg shows that different software
manufactureres are doing their own thing, and the charter suggests that nothing
has been previously documented.  Can IPR exist in such a context, where there
are so many different undocumented protocols?  syslog or BSD syslog may be
something else, like a trademark, but not IMHO a technology with associated IPR.

So, as I said before, I think the issue #1245 is real, but that syslog is not a
good exemplar of it, rather syslog is an obscure corner case best left in the
dark for the time being.

Have you got a better example?

Tom Petch

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:39:19 -0800

OK then rather than digging through hell - lets model this the way we would
in audit land - the goals are to cover the following uses:

    Republication rights so that portions of an initiative's works could be
reproduced in whole or as derivatives; and so that the work as a whole could
be published. Also so that the technology described as a system and process
is licensed to be implemented for the purpose of

    1)    Free-for all - under some selectecable set of terms

    2)    Under a recoverable use license belonging to the IETF's Trust

    3)    Beloning to the External - named or unamed IP Owners without any
conveyance to the IETF for use.

The real question is wheter the IETF's use model isnt already covered under
the Research and Academic Exceptions to Fair Use in the Copyright Act? - How
about it Larry - do you think the Fair Use section's IP 'golden kiss'
extends to the IETF as a Standards Organization based on its creating Global
IP?

I think its arguable that the real strength of the IETF's IP Rights are that
they are based on benefitting mankind and so the Courts and the laws give
them more leaveway. Still its worth bui;ding a process and a documented
workflow that is reliable and removes the goochies and smokey areas from the
passive submission and conveyance act in the current model...

FWIW - I have suggested that we could for instance change how documents are
submitted to the IETF and make all of them come through a Web Interface -
and we would have to make sure it ran with Lynx, but that is a reasonable
requirement. The form itself would have specific text to evoke eSign and get
the parties agreement to be bound by eSign, and then it would just accept
the document as long as you fillled out the submission's form.

What this does in the US is makes that Web-based form as legally strong as a
wet-signature, and so without any real pain, we can address a system that
gives the IETF literally an enforceable signature on a submission - wow -
simple. Easy... fixes a number of problems and gee - we could for the fun of
it also make a simple "Clean up your submittal" form for previous submitters
that would bring their documents up to 'snuff' with the new copyright - and
by the way - this is the way to get those documents donated to the Trust...

Anyway - this proposed system makes the issue I am arguing about - that
being whether there is a exclusive conveyance or not moot as well - at least
as far as the conveyance is concerned because the system is as strong as a
wet signature...

So ... By the way - Larry killed off two of my ten concerns - this fix kills
off a couple more if the IETF is willing to try it, and the others can be
dealt with... to.

Todd Glassey
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Petch" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 12:47 PM
Subject: the (ir?)relevance of syslogRe: #1245: Does describing a
technologyrequire a license from thepeople who originally described it?