Subject: Ss 107, ss 403 and the idea that technology publications have no linkage...

From: tglassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 13:15:23 -0800

Guys -

_*Patents and Technology Publishing are inextricably linked*_
Look - its simple, patents are, below their tests for novelty are tied 
to disclosure timelines. This isnt arguable its law. So the publication 
of certain technological notices and public disclosures invalidates 
certain timelines and there is commercial liability for that in a world 
where patents are still embraced.

Speaking of which, what do you do about some company who figures out 
they can go after the sponsors here for damages caused by controlled IP 
published here when during their discovery they find that virtually none 
of the disclosure practices in both of the BCP's are actually 
implemented in the parties playing in these sandboxes??? \

That simply means that the IP publication policy must embrace patent 
issues and damage in particular you might do by publishing private IP 
belonging to a specific party.

_*
As to 403 - Sorry, this place needs a lot of sunlight IMHO. *_
As to US Publishing in the IETF its US Government property - they - the 
people writing it have no legal authority to convey US Government 
Property to you in any form and BCP 78 and 79 must reflect that. Also if 
they are they on the Government's Dime the matter is even more complex.

As to USG employees according to the US IP Laws, as I  perform a 
plain-text reading of the (C) ss 403  statute, they (Federal Employees) 
can participate in your processes as long as Copyright Section 403 is 
managed properly and fully acknowledged in BCP 78 and 79 making the 
participation issue even more complex...

Sorry I dont actually see a way around that. This is simple legal 
analysis of a very straightforward requirement and its totally 
reasonable... US Government property is that of the People so...The IETF 
must acknowledge that it is accepting IP controlled by US Law and that 
it must represent that properly in its carry-forward licensing.

I suggest the following be added as controlling paragraphs to both BCP78 
and 79:

1)    The IETF complies with all Government Regulatory and Legal 
Requirements for Government Participation in its Standards Practices and 
that through this process parts of some or all of the IETF IP Licensing 
may have ties to these underlying license controls. For those the IETF 
License acknowledges that the IP Owners legal controls trump IETF 
Licensing and as such those controls are superior in a legal sense to 
the IETF licenses.

2)    The IETF disavows any failure of participants to properly engage 
their Sponsor's Legal Department and as a participation requirement, all 
entities must indemnify the IETF from any damages their actions could 
cause to Intellectual Property.

_*107 Exemption is also ... an issue.*_
The only the issue is as to whether the IETF can hide behind the 
research exemption since it has no research going on inside it whatsoever.

Personally I say NO WAY. Its time that the IETF's hiding behind these 
two fantasy documents stopped - there is no research going on here only 
standards practices and those are all supposed to be transparent right?  
That means everyone registers - no anonymity and per the two BCP 
documents everyone actually talks to IP Counsel inside their company 
regularly... what's so bad about that?

Todd

-- 
Regards TSG
"Ex-Cruce-Leo"

//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.