Florian Weimer | 1 Nov 12:54 2004
Picon

Re: Concerns regarding Microsoft's Royalty Free Protocol License Agreement

* Larry J. Blunk:

>    The fact that a significant number of protocols date from the early 
> 1980's, a time during which Microsoft had little patent activity, suggests
> that there is no reason to suspect that Microsoft has any patent rights
> to these early protocols (such as the TCP/IP v4 core
> protocols).

Keep in mind that even though the core protocols haven't changed that
much, actual TCP/IP deployments have drastically changed since the
early 80s.  Efficient packet forwarding algorithms (which are
necessary in Gigabit networks and beyond) are certainly subject to
patents today.
Steve Bellovin | 1 Nov 19:59 2004
Picon

referencing trademarks in RFCs

The issue of trademarks recognition has come up in a working group.  
The IESG has asked the IPR working group to discuss the issue and 
formulate a policy.

Section 3.3(a)(D) says that contributors grant rights to the IETF to 
reproduce trademarks, etc.  It also says:

           When reproducing Contributions, the IETF 
           will preserve trademark and service mark identifiers used by
           the Contributor of the Contribution, including (TM) and (R)
           where appropriate, and

3.4(e) says that contributors warrant that

      All trademarks, trade names, service marks and other proprietary
      names used in the Contribution that are reasonably and personally
      known to the Contributor are clearly designated as such where
      reasonable.

The question is how trademarks should be designated.  Clearly, a (TM) 
or a (R) is permitted by the RFC.  Furthermore, 3.6 says that 
conditions pertaining to implementors using the trademarked terms 
should be listed on the IETF IPR page, just as is done for patents.  We 
do have a tradition of not listing specific IPR claims in RFCs, partly 
because ownership and/or validity of such claims can change over time.

On the other hand, some trademark owners want to include a more 
specific acknowledgment, i.e., "Foobar is a trademark of the Hackers 
Corporation".  It's been done before; see, for example, RFCs 1510, 
2160, 3268, 2268, and 2936.  Beyond that, simply using a trademarked 
(Continue reading)

Bill Sommerfeld | 1 Nov 21:48 2004
Picon

Re: referencing trademarks in RFCs

On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 13:59, Steve Bellovin wrote:

> That said, specific ownership statements are not universal.  Pulling a 
> (non-random) book off my shelf, I see the statement "Many of the 
> designations used by manufacturers and sellers to distinguish their 
> products are claimed as trademarks.  Where those designations appear in 
> this book, and Addison-Wesley was aware of a trademark claim, the 
> designations have been printed in initial capital letters or in all 
> capitals."  Do we want more boilerplate instead?
> 
> So -- how should trademarks be denoted?  Just a (TM) or (R)?  Specific 
> ownership statements?  A blanket statement?

under US law there appear to be many different flavors of trademarks.  

trademarks have both geograpic and topical scope.  one trademark at
issue is the same in letter form as another one for medical devices.
Bill Sommerfeld | 1 Nov 21:49 2004
Picon

Re: referencing trademarks in RFCs

On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 15:48, Bill Sommerfeld wrote...

.. a message which escaped early.   please ignore; I'll send a more
complete one shortly.
Todd Glassey @ Att.Net | 1 Nov 21:53 2004
Picon
Picon

Re: referencing trademarks in RFCs

Steve - what happens to the IETF when it publishes a TM that the submitter didnt hold rights to? - What abot any damages to the IETF and that the IETF's publication of anothers TM may cause?
 
Todd
 
--
Regards,
Todd

-------------- Original message from Steve Bellovin <smb <at> research.att.com>: --------------


> The issue of trademarks recognition has come up in a working group.
> The IESG has asked the IPR working group to discuss the issue and
> formulate a policy.
>
> Section 3.3(a)(D) says that contributors grant rights to the IETF to
> reproduce trademarks, etc. It also says:
>
> When reproducing Contributions, the IETF
> will preserve trademark and service mark identifiers used by
> the Contributor of the Contribution, including (TM) and (R)
> where appropriate, and
>
> 3.4(e) says that contributors warrant that
>
> All trademarks, trade names, service marks and other proprietary
> names used in the Contribution that are reasonably and personally
> known to the Contrib! utor are clearly designated as such where
> reasonable.
>
> The question is how trademarks should be designated. Clearly, a (TM)
> or a (R) is permitted by the RFC. Furthermore, 3.6 says that
> conditions pertaining to implementors using the trademarked terms
> should be listed on the IETF IPR page, just as is done for patents. We
> do have a tradition of not listing specific IPR claims in RFCs, partly
> because ownership and/or validity of such claims can change over time.
>
> On the other hand, some trademark owners want to include a more
> specific acknowledgment, i.e., "Foobar is a trademark of the Hackers
> Corporation". It's been done before; see, for example, RFCs 1510,
> 2160, 3268, 2268, and 2936. Beyond that, simply using a trademarked
> term within an RFC is, arguably, done solel y at the pleasure of the
> trademark owner; that is quite different from a patent,! where a
> protocol specification does not infringe. Furthermor e, trademark
> owners have a legal duty to protect their trademarks, at risk of losing
> them.
>
> That said, specific ownership statements are not universal. Pulling a
> (non-random) book off my shelf, I see the statement "Many of the
> designations used by manufacturers and sellers to distinguish their
> products are claimed as trademarks. Where those designations appear in
> this book, and Addison-Wesley was aware of a trademark claim, the
> designations have been printed in initial capital letters or in all
> capitals." Do we want more boilerplate instead?
>
> So -- how should trademarks be denoted? Just a (TM) or (R)? Specific
> ownership statements? A blanket statement?
>
> --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
>
>
>
> ___________________ ____________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
&g! t; https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
John Levine | 2 Nov 02:33 2004

Re: referencing trademarks in RFCs

>The question is how trademarks should be designated.

This question has come up many times in the books I've written.
Basically, it's not our job to defend other people's trademarks, no
matter how much their junior lawyers may wish otherwise.  The
boilerplate from A-W is typical of what's been in my books, and I
would suggest using it in documents in which the authors are aware of
mentioning names that are claimed as trademarks.  Trademark law varies
a lot from country to country, registration rules are
country-specific, and it's a swamp we should stay out of as far as
possible.

That said, I can imagine that if one of the authors of a document
works for the Foo corporation, it might be a Foo policy that their
employees acknowledge the company's trademarks.  That seems OK so
long as it doesn't get out of hand, perhaps with a sentence added to
the boilerplate like "Foogasm is a registered trademark of Foo Corp."

Regards,
John Levine, johnl <at> taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
http://www.taugh.com

PS: The infamous "Unix(TM)" comes from a clause in early academic Unix
contracts and was binding on the licensees.  You don't have to do it
any more, unless perhaps if you work for X/Open.
BIll Sommerfeld | 2 Nov 03:43 2004
Picon

Re: referencing trademarks in RFCs

On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 20:33, John Levine wrote:
> >The question is how trademarks should be designated.
> 
> This question has come up many times in the books I've written.
> Basically, it's not our job to defend other people's trademarks, no
> matter how much their junior lawyers may wish otherwise.  The
> boilerplate from A-W is typical of what's been in my books, and I
> would suggest using it in documents in which the authors are aware of
> mentioning names that are claimed as trademarks.  Trademark law varies
> a lot from country to country, registration rules are
> country-specific, and it's a swamp we should stay out of as far as
> possible.

so, under that interpretation, rfc3667 section 3.4e (which I read to
require acknowledgement of third-party trademarks known to the author)
should simply be deleted, and 3.3a(D) extended to better constrain the
specific form of  trademark designations that the IETF agrees to
preserve.

Given the complex nature of authorship of many WG documents (often
there's an original author, and then the text gets handed from editor to
editor, accreting text from many WG members), might it be necessary to
identify which of the original author(s) are making a particular
trademark claim?

					- Bill
Contreras, Jorge | 2 Nov 12:48 2004

RE: referencing trademarks in RFCs

I recall that the text currently in RFC 3667 relating to trademarks was 
developed after some careful thought and discussion.  I think it would result
in the following outcomes:

1.  If an author wants to use (TM) or (R) after certain terms in an IETF
Document, he/she would be permitted to do so.

2.  Other claims about trademark ownership belong in separate IP disclosures.
These disclosures would include both statements like "My company is the 
registered owner of US Trademark 12345 covering use of the term 'FOOBAR' when
applied to computer software" and "XYZ Company (a third party) is claiming ownership of
German trademark rights in 'FOOBAR'".

3.  The IETF should not  be put into a position of having to reproduce or make
decisions about the merit of individual trademark claims.

4.  Under US law, it is doubtful that use of a trademarked term in an IETF 
document would infringe the mark.  Infringement generally only occurs in
connection with the sale or promotion of a good or service, which is not what
happens in an IETF document.  

I hope that helps,
Jorge

-----Original Message-----
From: ipr-wg-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:ipr-wg-bounces <at> ietf.org]On Behalf
Of Steve Bellovin
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 1:59 PM
To: ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
Subject: referencing trademarks in RFCs

The issue of trademarks recognition has come up in a working group.  
The IESG has asked the IPR working group to discuss the issue and 
formulate a policy.

Section 3.3(a)(D) says that contributors grant rights to the IETF to 
reproduce trademarks, etc.  It also says:

           When reproducing Contributions, the IETF 
           will preserve trademark and service mark identifiers used by
           the Contributor of the Contribution, including (TM) and (R)
           where appropriate, and

3.4(e) says that contributors warrant that

      All trademarks, trade names, service marks and other proprietary
      names used in the Contribution that are reasonably and personally
      known to the Contributor are clearly designated as such where
      reasonable.

The question is how trademarks should be designated.  Clearly, a (TM) 
or a (R) is permitted by the RFC.  Furthermore, 3.6 says that 
conditions pertaining to implementors using the trademarked terms 
should be listed on the IETF IPR page, just as is done for patents.  We 
do have a tradition of not listing specific IPR claims in RFCs, partly 
because ownership and/or validity of such claims can change over time.

On the other hand, some trademark owners want to include a more 
specific acknowledgment, i.e., "Foobar is a trademark of the Hackers 
Corporation".  It's been done before; see, for example, RFCs 1510, 
2160, 3268, 2268, and 2936.  Beyond that, simply using a trademarked 
term within an RFC is, arguably, done solely at the pleasure of the 
trademark owner; that is quite different from a patent, where a 
protocol specification does not infringe.  Furthermore, trademark 
owners have a legal duty to protect their trademarks, at risk of losing 
them.

That said, specific ownership statements are not universal.  Pulling a 
(non-random) book off my shelf, I see the statement "Many of the 
designations used by manufacturers and sellers to distinguish their 
products are claimed as trademarks.  Where those designations appear in 
this book, and Addison-Wesley was aware of a trademark claim, the 
designations have been printed in initial capital letters or in all 
capitals."  Do we want more boilerplate instead?

So -- how should trademarks be denoted?  Just a (TM) or (R)?  Specific 
ownership statements?  A blanket statement?

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
Brian E Carpenter | 2 Nov 13:41 2004
Picon

Re: referencing trademarks in RFCs

I think it is reasonable to use the (TM) and (R) designations
and a blanket statement, but actually trademark holders may well
want more, e.g. http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/tmug.pdf
In such cases the complete acknowledgement text may be a
practical necessity.

    Brian
Spencer Dawkins | 3 Nov 13:46 2004

Re: referencing trademarks in RFCs

> Given the complex nature of authorship of many WG documents (often
> there's an original author, and then the text gets handed from 
> editor to
> editor, accreting text from many WG members), might it be necessary 
> to
> identify which of the original author(s) are making a particular
> trademark claim?
>
> - Bill

I apologize in advance for wobbling off-topic, but this is yet another 
excellent reason for not dragging on in specifications work!

Spencer

("TM by an infinite number of monkeys typing ...") 

Gmane