Discussion list for IPR-related procedures of the IETF standards process.

tsg | 21 May 2013 22:35

The IPR filing form has a flaw... Patent Assignee's dont always control or have licensing authority on them.

  The IPR filing form assumes that the Party the Patent in the filing is 
assigned to also controls the licensing and that is not always true.  
dTo that end - some form of notation or role-specific type statement 
needs to be created for this form as well to meet this specific (and 
more and more common) situation.

Todd Glassey

headers

johnsonhammond1 | 27 Apr 2013 19:47

Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science

Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science

We are researchers from different parts of the world and conducted a study on  
the world’s biggest bogus computer science conference WORLDCOMP 
( http://sites.google.com/site/worlddump1 ) organized by Prof. Hamid Arabnia 
from University of Georgia, USA.

We submitted a fake paper to WORLDCOMP 2011 and again (the same paper 
with a modified title) to WORLDCOMP 2012. This paper had numerous 
fundamental mistakes. Sample statements from that paper include: 

(1). Binary logic is fuzzy logic and vice versa
(2). Pascal developed fuzzy logic
(3). Object oriented languages do not exhibit any polymorphism or inheritance
(4). TCP and IP are synonyms and are part of OSI model 
(5). Distributed systems deal with only one computer
(6). Laptop is an example for a super computer
(7). Operating system is an example for computer hardware

Also, our paper did not express any conceptual meaning.  However, it 
was accepted both the times without any modifications (and without 
any reviews) and we were invited to submit the final paper and a 
payment of $500+ fee to present the paper. We decided to use the 
fee for better purposes than making Prof. Hamid Arabnia (Chairman 
of WORLDCOMP) rich. After that, we received few reminders from 
WORLDCOMP to pay the fee but we never responded. 

We MUST say that you should look at the above website if you have any thoughts 
to submit a paper to WORLDCOMP.  DBLP and other indexing agencies have stopped 
indexing WORLDCOMP’s proceedings since 2011 due to its fakeness. See

(Continue reading)

headers

Brian E Carpenter | 26 Apr 2013 21:44

Status of a disclosure when technology is removed from a draft?

Hi,

A case has just occurred of the following sequence:

1. A draft is posted that contains an algorithm;
2. A corresponding IPR disclosure is posted;
3. After WG discussion, the draft is updated with the algorithm removed.

What next? The IPR disclosure is still there. Normally, we assume
that the disclosure remains relevant to following versions of the
draft without being re-posted each time. (In fact, do we even expect
a repeat disclosure for the eventual RFC? I don't think so.)

Is there a need for a formal rule for this case?

And what should the IPR holder do now? If they do nothing, the
updated draft might be assumed to be encumbered.

(FYI the draft is draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing
and the disclosure is https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2060/ .)

    Brian

headers

tsg | 15 Apr 2013 19:16

Q: do we have any IETF Publication Mirror and Mailing List Retention Requirements.

Folks
In regard to IETF Mailing List Archives and WG operations... what is the 
period of retention? Also is it possible this needs to also apply to the 
document mirrors?

So there are some issues we need to pull out and put on the list of 
things we need to deal with in IETF participation. The issue I want to 
bring up here pertains to RECORD RETENTION and AVAILABILITY POLICY for 
both the submissions and for the WG Mirrors.

Documents and Mailing Lists must be retained for seven years (7 years)
============================================
As to why there are legal tax issues for needing to prove participation 
in the IETF and so since as much as  75% of its participants today (we 
figure it actually may be higher) from the commercial world are using 
tax write-downs under employee benefits to support IETF costing, so the 
ability to prove that participation for the full tax-document retention 
period just became a real issue.

What does this mean for WG's who outsource that? -
================================
My gut level from the real world is that means that the WG's initial 
founders and its Sponsors are probably still liable and its their 
management and possibly any external sponsors therein who hold that 
liability.

I could be totally wrong but I dont think so. If that is true then to 
support this need for retention any WG which is maintained outside of 
the main IETF Web Profile through its own email archive and service.

(Continue reading)

headers

Dale Mohlenhoff (dmohlenh | 9 Apr 2013 20:10

Participation, provisionals and FRAND

Hi Jorge and Scott,

Thank you for your latest revisions.

I like the changes in Section 1.k. I think that the phrase “in any other way acting in order to influence the outcome of a discussion relating to the IETF Standards Process” is an appropriate way to get at the true purpose of defining participation. There has been some discussion on whether or not just passively attending all or part of a meeting should be deemed participation. While I can certainly see both sides of this argument, I am leaning in favor of the language you proposed. It has been my experience that sometimes those who passively attend do indeed gather information and may speak about this with others after the meeting and either intentionally or unintentionally influence opinions and outcomes.

With respect to the revision in Section 1.d, I like the inclusion of provisional patent application in the “Covers” definition. I am of the opinion in a standards setting that the more information regarding essential patents, the better. Granted the provisional may not in the end be essential, but we have that same issue now with applications where the claims are significantly amended during prosecution.

With respect to the FRAND question, I am in favor of having some type of minimum FRAND commitment. I do believe it would help the diffusion of IETF standards and would for all practical purposes formalize the practice of most participants in the IETF. It makes for a great deal of uncertainty if a participant does not make such a commitment.

Thanks,

Dale

Dale G. Mohlenhoff Cisco Systems, Inc.

Senior Corporate Counsel 170 West Tasman Drive

San Jose, CA 95134-1706

dmohlenh <at> cisco.com

Direct: +1.408.525.9589

Mobile: +1.509.991.6003

This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

headers

SM | 9 Apr 2013 18:49

Re: normative reference within a Contribution

Hi Ted,
At 08:08 09-04-2013, Ted Hardie wrote:
>The two points of view seem to me have two very different starting 
>points.  One starting point is "The IETF disclosures should tell you 
>about any IPR the participants believed covered what you need to 
>implement the technology described."  and the other is "The IETF 
>disclosures should tell you about any IPR the participants believed 
>covers the technology developed within the IETF contexts."

Thanks for attempting to summarize the points.  Although the 
normative reference question is relevant I think that it looks at the 
issue from an incorrect angle.  I would simplify the question as follows:

   Does the contribution cover any Implementing Technology which 
would require an
   IPR disclosure? [1]

The question of whether the reference is normative or informative, or 
whether the document references a technology developed outside an 
IETF context can be side-stepped.

BTW, the audience for draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-04 is also IETF 
participants.  Some people will not understand the question being 
asked if it is not simplified.

Regards,
-sm

1. I did not try to come up with a properly phrased question.

headers

Barry Leiba | 9 Apr 2013 18:56

1.k in draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-04: scope of "participation"

Hi, Jorge.

> 1.k - overhauled "participation" definition to indicate that in-person
> attendance at an IETF session is "participation" in the session.  Sending a
> message to a mailing list is participation in that discussion, but merely
> subscribing to or getting messages from an email list does NOT constitute
> participation (i.e., no IPR disclosure required if you just lurk on a list).

I do not believe that this accurately reflects consensus in the BoF.
So I went to the text to see exactly what's there:

   k. "Participating in an IETF discussion or activity": means making a
      Contribution, as described above, or in any other way acting in
      order to influence the outcome of a discussion relating to the
      IETF Standards Process.  Without limiting the generality of the
      foregoing, attending all or part of a session at a live IETF
      meeting is deemed to mean participating in the entire session.
      Sending a message to an email list is deemed to constitute
      participating in the associated email discussion for its entire
      duration and any successor email discussions.  Likewise, simply
      subscribing to or reading messages received from an IETF email
      list does not constitute participation in the relevant IETF
      discussion.

As I remember the BoF, we had two main discussions on which consensus
was judged:

1. Is one allowed to attend a meeting session and *not* participate.
I believe we had rough consensus for "yes".  Arguments included BoFs
and other proposals of new work, where one could not anticipate what
was going to come up, and situations where attendance of an author or
subject-matter expert on one topic was desirable, and it would not
serve us well to keep her away because of disclosure issues on another
topic.

2. What is the scope of "participation" in a meeting session?  If one
participates in one topic, can one be silent on another and not be
considered a participant in it?  On this there was not rough
consensus: Russ judged about 2/3 in favour of "the scope is the full
session," and 1/3 for "the scope can be more granular than that."

The new text is clearly wrong with respect to (1) in the second
sentence, and is assuming a resolution of (2) in the second sentence
for which there is not (yet?) consensus.

In the last sentence, "likewise" seems like the wrong word.  Perhaps
"On the other hand," would be better.

Barry

headers

Jorge Contreras | 9 Apr 2013 03:57

Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-04.txt

All -- a new draft v4 of BCP79bis has just been released (see below). In this draft, we attempted to reflect the outcome of the BOF in Orlando:

1.c - removed "claims" from reference to provisional patents

1.k - overhauled "participation" definition to indicate that in-person attendance at an IETF session is "participation" in the session. Sending a message to a mailing list is participation in that discussion, but merely subscribing to or getting messages from an email list does NOT constitute participation (i.e., no IPR disclosure required if you just lurk on a list).

5.4.2.B - carry-over comment from pre-BOF: removed references to "foreign" patent counterparts to avoid over-emphasis of US patent.

Two other substantive suggestions were raised after the BOF, and we thought it would be best to have a further list discussion of them before including them in a draft:

From Harald Alvestrand: is an IPR disclosure required for a normative reference within a Contribution? i.e., Adam submits an I-D that normatively references IEEE standard X. Adam knows of patents that his company has covering X. These patents may or may not have been disclosed previously in an IEEE Letter of Assurance. Does Adam need to make an IETF IPR disclosure of patents covering IEEE X?

From Stephan Wegner: should IETF require that patents covering IETF standards be licensed, at a minimum, on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms? Currently there is no licensing obligation whatsoever at IETF. This makes it difficult to reference IETF standards in other SDOs. Having a "FRAND minimum" commitment would help diffusion of IETF standards, and, for all practical purposes, is already the practice at IETF (just not formally required).

We look forward to more discussion!

Jorge and Scott

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <internet-drafts <at> ietf.org>
Date: Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 9:32 PM
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-04.txt
To: sob <at> harvard.edu
Cc: cntreras <at> gmail.com

A new version of I-D, draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-04.txt
has been successfully submitted by Scott Bradner and posted to the
IETF repository.

Filename: draft-bradner-rfc3979bis
Revision: 04
Title: Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology
Creation date: 2013-04-08
Group: Individual Submission
Number of pages: 18
URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-04.txt
Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bradner-rfc3979bis
Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-04
Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-04

Abstract:
The IETF policies about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), such as
patent rights, relative to technologies developed in the IETF are
designed to ensure that IETF working groups and participants have as
much information about any IPR constraints on a technical proposal as
possible. The policies are intended to benefit the Internet
community and the public at large, while respecting the legitimate
rights of IPR holders. This memo details the IETF policies
concerning IPR related to technology worked on within the IETF. It
also describes the objectives that the policies are designed to meet.
This memo updates RFC 2026 and obsoletes RFC 3979 and RFC 4879.

The IETF Secretariat

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

headers

Russ Housley | 8 Apr 2013 18:17

IETF 86 IPRbis BOF Minutes

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/minutes/minutes-86-iprbis

The minutes have been posted.  Please let me know if any corrections are needed.

Thanks,
  Russ

headers

tglassey | 19 Feb 2013 19:25

IPR Issues - because of this new ED of Texas ruling the license to use the IP MUST be included inside the IPR filing.

Read em and weep Jorge...  The actual License Itself MUST be a part of 
the IPR FILING or a much stronger term set included.

This is an amazing ruling since it pertains to IPR disclosures here - it 
made the entire IPR workpage with regard to its commitments for license 
a total waste. They are now no longer enforceable without the actual 
contracts there themselves.

So lets see - this makes it US Courts 10, IETF - 0...

Todd

--

-- 
Regards TSG
"Ex-Cruce-Leo"

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

1	May 2013
66	April 2013
11	March 2013
18	February 2013
62	January 2013
7	November 2012
23	February 2012
3	August 2011
2	May 2011
1	April 2011
3	October 2010
2	June 2010
10	May 2010
4	April 2010
1	March 2010
68	February 2010
35	January 2010
1	December 2009
4	November 2009
1	October 2009
7	September 2009
15	August 2009
5	May 2009
8	April 2009
30	March 2009
12	February 2009
6	January 2009
3	December 2008
15	November 2008
21	October 2008
71	September 2008
43	August 2008
128	July 2008
37	June 2008
1	May 2008
21	April 2008
28	March 2008
39	February 2008
22	January 2008
101	December 2007
139	November 2007
71	October 2007
8	September 2007
27	August 2007
85	July 2007
30	June 2007
54	May 2007
73	April 2007
135	March 2007
6	February 2007
113	January 2007
85	December 2006
32	November 2006
80	October 2006
6	September 2006
43	August 2006
124	July 2006
111	June 2006
117	May 2006
115	April 2006
177	March 2006
54	February 2006
166	January 2006
72	December 2005
266	November 2005
131	October 2005
1	September 2005
28	July 2005
1	April 2005
20	March 2005
194	February 2005
86	January 2005
113	December 2004
21	November 2004
18	October 2004
10	September 2004
1	August 2004
3	July 2004
4	May 2004
31	April 2004
29	March 2004
6	February 2004
10	January 2004
4	December 2003
41	November 2003
2	October 2003
9	September 2003
157	August 2003
91	July 2003
282	June 2003
100	May 2003
230	April 2003
481	March 2003
347	February 2003
4	January 2003
19	December 2002
133	November 2002
44	October 2002
9	September 2002
3	August 2002
55	July 2002
51	June 2002

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun

		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31