Subject: The IETF policy needs to be expanded for two types of IPR Declarations.

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 08:36:46 -0700

Folks
The problem the IETF and its Management Face is that the creation of the IPR
process is not well, and IETF document's are regularly published by the IETF
without any understanding as to what those publishing events do to the
larger picture of the IP and its license.

IPR Design Flaws
----------------------
The IPR page has some interesting failings and the one that is really
important is that it blends "forward looking license statements" not
particular to any specific or existing IP with actual IPR disclosures in
with real Disclosure Statements regarding already existing IP controls
making it difficult to search that IPR DB for actually important IPR Claims.

Here is a specific filings from the NSA that is properly
done: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/858/; and here is a filing that
is essentially meaningless - its a political statement about
events not disclosed and so it has no effect here except to
say that they intend to play nice. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/170/

This architecture of IP Process makes it virtually impossible to search the
IPR DB for issues which may pertain to an initiative not yet or already
under way inside the IETF. That is a failing which is unacceptable since it
renders the IPR Process effectively useless as too costly to perform
for each document filed with the IETF as part of a Standards Practice.

In closing, this "blending of useless info" with specific patent information 
just
complicates the practice and document's the lack of design forethought that
went into the IPR Page and its workflow processes.

The fix
----------
Somehow - all IP Submissions to the IETF need to be verified against the IPR
DB and failing to do so makes the IETF's publishers co-conspirator's in an
electronic fraud under 18 USC 1030 (or so I personally believe).  If they
(those submissions) are published then there MUST be some notice in them
that there are relevant IPR filings and that the IPR DB needs to be checked
by all who would use this IP.

Because of the complexity and lack of design forethought that went into the
IPR-Disclosure Page IMHO it is unrealistic to just claim that people have to
check the IPR DB and that they all know this. That simply is not true in
most cases IMHO.

---
Personal Disclaimers Apply

TS Glassey

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