jeremy hunsinger | 21 Jan 00:11 2003
Picon

are we finished?

or what is the state of work that we are in?
jeremy hunsinger
jhuns <at> vt.edu
on the ibook
www.cddc.vt.edu
www.cddc.vt.edu/jeremy
www.cddc.vt.edu/jeremy/blog

()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail
/\                        - against microsoft attachments
Steven M. Bellovin | 21 Jan 02:30 2003
Picon

Re: are we finished?

In message <854345CA-2CCC-11D7-9B84-0003931A63CC <at> vt.edu>, jeremy hunsinger writ
es:
>or what is the state of work that we are in?

There are three documents in our charter.  One was approved in Atlanta. 
There will be new versions of the other two coming shortly.  Rob and I 
hope that we'll be able to wrap these up in San Francisco.  Following 
that--and assuming there are no other items anyone wants to add to 
agenda (if there are some, drop a note to me)---we'll have an open mike 
session, similar to the one in Atlanta.  To quote our charter:

	If there consensus of the working group for a different
	IPR policy than the one described in RFC 2026, the working
	group will seek to amend its charter to make it clear that
	it is changing the status quo.

That's what the open mike session will be about:  do we wish to change 
the IETF's IPR policy?  If there is a consensus for a change -- there 
was a strong consensus against change in Atlanta -- we will seek to 
recharter.  If we finish up the documents and there is no consensus for 
a change, the WG will terminate.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)
Scott Bradner | 29 Jan 21:59 2003
Picon

interesting quote from today's rambus decision


a federal appeals court rules in a Rambus-related case today
(see http://www.ebnonline.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=6406508)

here is an interesting quote from that decision - one that we
should strive to not have made about the IETF rules at some time
in teh future

Scott

-------------
"In this case there is a staggering lack of defining details in the        
EIA/JEDEC patent policy.  When direct competitors participate in an open   
standards committee, their work necessitates a written patent policy with  
clear guidance on the committee's intellectual property         
position.  A policy that does not define clearly what, when, how, and to   
whom the members must disclose does not provide a firm basis for the       
disclosure duty necessary for a fraud verdict.  Without a clear policy,    
members form vaguely defined expectations as to what they believe the      
policy requires -- whether the policy in fact so requires or not.   JEDEC  
could have drafted a patent policy with a broader disclosure duty.  It     
could have drafted a policy broad enough to capture a member's  
failed attempts to mine a disclosed specification for broader undisclosed  
claims.   It could have.  It simply did not."
James Love | 30 Jan 00:56 2003

Federal Circuit rules in favor of Rambus

I thinks this is relevant to the IETF process.

jamie

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [AT-IP] Federal Circuit rules in favor of Rambus
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 12:18:54 -0800
From: Henry Su <HSu <at> fenwick.com>
Reply-To: Henry Su <HSu <at> fenwick.com>
To: AT-IP <at> MAIL.ABANET.ORG

All--

Attached is a link to today's decision from the Federal Circuit in the 
Rambus v. Infineon appeal.  The court reversed the trial court (1) on 
claim construction, thereby vacating the JMOL of noninfringement in 
Infineon's favor, and (2) on the denial of JMOL that allowed the jury 
verdict of fraud in connection with the SDRAM standard-setting process 
to stand.

http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/01-1449.doc

Regarding the fraud issue, the Federal Circuit reviewed the evidence of 
record and held that a reasonable jury would conclude that Rambus's duty 
of disclosure as a JEDEC participant (1) applies only to patents 
containing claims that might reasonably be necessary to practice the 
proposed standard, and (2) arises only when work formally begins on the 
proposed standard.  It further held that the duty of disclosure did not 
cover a participant's future plans or intentions (i.e., to file or amend 
patent applications).  The court criticized JEDEC's patent policy for 
(Continue reading)


Gmane