Subject: ABA book on rules fro standards orgs

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:27:43 -0500 (EST)

relayed from Jorge L. Contreras

> I thought you would be interested to know that our Standards Development
> Patent Policy Manual is now on Google Books (with the blessing of ABA
> Publishing)

http://books.google.com/books?id=3Dq1_kqDJELucC&printsec=3Dfrontcover&sou=
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:29:54 -0700

> http://books.google.com/books?id=3Dq1_kqDJELucC&printsec=3Dfrontcover&sou=

I get a 404 there. But this works for me:

http://books.google.com/books?id=q1_kqDJELucC&dq=standards+development+patent

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:52:32 -0800

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:10:14 +0100

> http://books.google.com/books?id=3Dq1_kqDJELucC&printsec=3Dfrontcover&sou=

As far as I can tell, that covers patents.  Or did I miss any part that
discuss copyright concerns?

/Simon

---

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:33:58 -0500

> discuss copyright concerns?

That's why it's called the "Patent Policy Manual".  Look for the 
2nd edition, covering copyrights too, in a couple of years...
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:27:30 -0500 (EST)

> As far as I can tell, that covers patents.

yup

> Or did I miss any part that

easy to miss when its not there :-)

Scott

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:37:04 -0800

Scott - the problem is that there is NO WAY to separate the patent issues 
from the creation of an IP Standards to implement that technology as a 
system - i.e. something that could be patented.

What I am saying is that the IETF's viewpoint that it is clear of patent 
issues is wrong IMHO. The patent controls are key to making IETF standards 
'sustainable' in the bigger picture.

What that means is that the IETF needs to incorporate patent type controls 
into its technology licensing models as well, and to date it has dragged its 
feet on accomplishing these key growth issues IMHO.

Todd Glassey

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:45:26 +0000

Todd: does this book say that?

We have a choice: we can follow your advice (and as far as I know
you're not a lawyer), or we can follow the advice of someone who not
only is a lawyer, but is also the *editor* of the ABA book on the
subject.  Why should any of us think you know more about the subject
than an ABA committee?
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:20:40 -0500

Sorry, I don't understand.

Is anyone offering the book contents as an IETF contribution?

Is this ietf working group hosting discussions of possible new work 
items that would be based on material that is not an IETF contribution?

Is anyone using this mailing list to advertise something?

Is the ipr wg mandated to monitor and discuss the global trends in the 
subject matter covered by the book?

I'm just curious about the IETF procedures ... Thanks in advance for any 
clarification.

Regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc.
9130 Place de Montgolfier
Montreal, Qc
Canada   H2M 2A1

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

web site: http://www.connotech.com
e-mail: [email-masked]

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:16:50 -0500 (EST)

> Is anyone offering the book contents as an IETF contribution?

nope - its just for info to this WG

it can help to see what other SDOs do in their rules

Scott

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:24:00 -0800

Thierry (with my devil's advocate cap on)...
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thierry Moreau" <[email-masked]>
To: "Peter Saint-Andre" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Scott O. Bradner" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: ABA book on rules fro standards orgs

> Is anyone offering the book contents as an IETF contribution?

No - in this instance,  the copyright is owned by the American Bar
Association. The work is resold through their publications book-store. The
various Track Participants are tasked to produce these as the work-product
of their WG's like IETF WG's. We did the PKI Assessment Guidelines the
same way.

[Jorge - let mer ask, is the Section giving away PDF copies (we did with the
ISC's PKI Assessment Guidelines for some time).]

> items that would be based on material that is not an IETF contribution?

Not that I was aware of - what I was saying (again) is that the Charter of
this WG is still broken because I assert that Patent issues cannot be
separated from effort's of writing technology descriptions therein.

By the way - my 'legal theory' is that our works are not literary but rather
precision "How-To" guides which in and of themselves form the basis of a
Patent's "Technology Description". What's properly missing is the Claims and
IPR/Releated Works Section but a well written IETF Standard should be pretty
close to filable as a Patent under US law one would think.

As such any products or code written from that technology description (that
genesis) would also be derivative works which are implemented,and so they
are also patentable. Hence public discussion of those aspects constitute's
the first instance where a date can be established to create a prior-art
instance.  What that means ultimately again, is that public discussion on an
IETF Mailing List or Meeting constitutes a formal public disclosure such
that it starts the Patent Timeclocks running and that means that there are
clearly damages which can occur here in the IETF that we need to protect the
IETF and ourselves from.

The funny part about this is that claiming that this isnt true doesnt make
that assertion so... and that's the problem here I think. There are some key
members who have resisted the facts that patent protection is a key part of
IETF Standards and that cannot be properly separated from the SDO process
IMHO.

Sorry it is what it is, IMHO.

SNIP ---