headers
Harald Alvestrand | 4 Apr 18:41
Picon

Issue #1238 Shoud secretariat ask for IPR clarification from IPR holders on 3rd party IPR disclosures

I've started the process of updating the ticket system with the 
thoughts/issues from the IPR WG meeting in Dallas (minutes being worked on).

--- update
The IPR WG meeting in Dallas identified that there might be legal issues 
with taking such action ("lawsuits waiting to happen" was the term David 
Black used).
Apart from that issue, the room seemed clearly of the opinion that 
following up such disclosures was a Good Thing - reducing the FUD aspect 
of 3rd party notices.
--- end update

For the list:
- correct sense of the room?
- corresponds to sense of the mailing list?

Thoughts, mine:
- I don't think the IETF as such should care (except for giving fair 
warning) about liability that might be incurred by the filer of an IPR 
disclosure.
The IETF should be worried about liability accruing to the IETF 
secretariat for maintaining the DB or sending out the notices.
- I think the possible liability is lessened the less judgment there is 
in the system. Form letters are less dangerous than judgments.
- It's OK to refuse to send out letters where the filer did not give 
contact info for the alleged IPR holder (common sense).

Other thoughts?
Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |
headers
Harald Alvestrand | 4 Apr 18:50
Picon

Resolution of #1245 - Does describing a technology require a license from the people who originally described it?

This did not get included in my omnibus resolution of tickets.

After Larry Rosen's pretty thorough explanation, and after discussing 
this with Jorge, I think the answer is clearly "no".

Issue closed.
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Black_David | 4 Apr 18:58

RE: Issue #1238 Shoud secretariat ask for IPR clarification from IPR holders on 3rd party IPR disclosures

> The IPR WG meeting in Dallas identified that there might be legal issues 
> with taking such action ("lawsuits waiting to happen" was the term David 
> Black used).

Speaking for myself, my intent in raising the issue was to bring it
to Jorge's attention.  I defer to Jorge's expertise on what level of
organizational liability to the IETF attaches to which notification
mechanisms, and expect to support his recommendations in this area.

Jorge?

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald <at> alvestrand.no] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 12:42 PM
> To: ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
> Subject: Issue #1238 Shoud secretariat ask for IPR 
> clarification from IPR holders on 3rd party IPR disclosures
> 
> I've started the process of updating the ticket system with the 
> thoughts/issues from the IPR WG meeting in Dallas (minutes 
> being worked on).
> 
> --- update
> The IPR WG meeting in Dallas identified that there might be legal issues 
> with taking such action ("lawsuits waiting to happen" was the term David 
> Black used).
> Apart from that issue, the room seemed clearly of the opinion that
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Spencer Dawkins | 4 Apr 19:05
Favicon

Re: Issue #1238 Shoud secretariat ask for IPR clarification from IPR holders on 3rd party IPR disclosures

Sorry that I couldn't attend the Dallas IPR session (there actually is a 
limit to how much General Area stuff I can pay attention to).

> I've started the process of updating the ticket system with the 
> thoughts/issues from the IPR WG meeting in Dallas (minutes being worked 
> on).
>
> --- update
> The IPR WG meeting in Dallas identified that there might be legal issues 
> with taking such action ("lawsuits waiting to happen" was the term David 
> Black used).
> Apart from that issue, the room seemed clearly of the opinion that 
> following up such disclosures was a Good Thing - reducing the FUD aspect 
> of 3rd party notices.
> --- end update
>
> For the list:
> - correct sense of the room?
> - corresponds to sense of the mailing list?
>
> Thoughts, mine:
> - I don't think the IETF as such should care (except for giving fair 
> warning) about liability that might be incurred by the filer of an IPR 
> disclosure.

I think I agree with this, but can also imagine a chilling effect the first 
time a third-party discloser gets sued. If we think third-party disclosure 
matters, and think that collecting the minimum amount of information from 
the discloser would limit the discloser's exposure to lawsuits, it would be 
nice to collect only the minimum information.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
David B Harrington | 4 Apr 19:14
Picon

RE: Issue #1238 Shoud secretariat ask for IPR clarification from IPR holders on 3rd party IPR disclosures

My personal opinion is I believe the followup of such disclosures is a
good thing, and a necessary one to prevent the standards process from
being undermined by IPR holders.

David Harrington
FutureWei Technologies, a Huawei company
dharrington <at> huawei.com 
dbharrington <at> comcast.net
ietfdbh <at> comcast.net

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald <at> alvestrand.no] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 12:42 PM
> To: ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
> Subject: Issue #1238 Shoud secretariat ask for IPR 
> clarification from IPR holders on 3rd party IPR disclosures
> 
> 
> I've started the process of updating the ticket system with the 
> thoughts/issues from the IPR WG meeting in Dallas (minutes 
> being worked on).
> 
> --- update
> The IPR WG meeting in Dallas identified that there might be 
> legal issues 
> with taking such action ("lawsuits waiting to happen" was the 
> term David 
> Black used).
> Apart from that issue, the room seemed clearly of the opinion that 
> following up such disclosures was a Good Thing - reducing the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Thomas Narten | 4 Apr 20:36
Picon
Favicon

Re: Issue #1238 Shoud secretariat ask for IPR clarification from IPR holders on 3rd party IPR disclosures

> The IPR WG meeting in Dallas identified that there might be legal issues 
> with taking such action ("lawsuits waiting to happen" was the term David 
> Black used).

On this topic, it's been pointed out to me that:

> As to the IETF secretariat contacting folks, there is a precedent
> the IETF might want to explore.  The IEEE follows this type of
> process.  A participant or 3rd party informs the WG chair that a
> company or individual may have technology within a particular area.
> The WG chair than contacts the IEEE secretariat to communicate with
> the potential technology holder.  The IEEE takes no position on the
> technology.  The IEEE only acknowledges the response (or no
> response) that it receives.  This has worked successfully for them
> for years and has kept the membership at arms length from the
> essentiality discussions.

Thomas
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Simon Josefsson | 4 Apr 20:42

Re: Issue #1238 Shoud secretariat ask for IPR clarification from IPR holders on 3rd party IPR disclosures

"Spencer Dawkins" <spencer <at> mcsr-labs.org> writes:

> Sorry that I couldn't attend the Dallas IPR session (there actually is
> a limit to how much General Area stuff I can pay attention to).
>
>
>> I've started the process of updating the ticket system with the
>> thoughts/issues from the IPR WG meeting in Dallas (minutes being
>> worked on).
>>
>> --- update
>> The IPR WG meeting in Dallas identified that there might be legal
>> issues with taking such action ("lawsuits waiting to happen" was the
>> term David Black used).
>> Apart from that issue, the room seemed clearly of the opinion that
>> following up such disclosures was a Good Thing - reducing the FUD
>> aspect of 3rd party notices.
>> --- end update
>>
>> For the list:
>> - correct sense of the room?
>> - corresponds to sense of the mailing list?
>>
>> Thoughts, mine:
>> - I don't think the IETF as such should care (except for giving fair
>> warning) about liability that might be incurred by the filer of an
>> IPR disclosure.
>
> I think I agree with this, but can also imagine a chilling effect the
> first time a third-party discloser gets sued. If we think third-party
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Lawrence Rosen | 4 Apr 21:35

RE: Issue #1238 Shoud secretariat ask for IPR clarification from IPR holders on 3rd party IPR disclosures

I don't want to give IETF specific legal advice about what it should do to
avoid "legal issues" when IPR claims are asserted or disclosed. But here's
what I would do in the general case:

1. Take all claims seriously. Post them in an obvious place and ask
technical people to read them. Ignorance is not necessarily bliss; that's a
myth perpetrated by people who don't like patents or don't like lawyers.

2. Publicize those claims for future implementers. Even though you don't
find it important, someone else may.

3. Review IPR claims within the WG to ensure they are in a form suitable for
IETF purposes. For example, all IPR claims accompanied by an IETF-acceptable
Open Standard license should be accepted with gratitude. 

4. Review IPR claims having unacceptable licenses or which are ambiguous
with your attorney. Don't waste everyone's time developing specifications we
can't freely implement just to save an hour or two of attorney time. For
serious IPR challenges, pro bono legal assistance may be available.

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
Stanford University, Lecturer in Law
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242  *  fax: 707-485-1243
Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and 
                Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice Hall 2004)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
todd glassey | 4 Apr 22:08
Picon

Re: Issue #1238 Shoud secretariat ask for IPR clarification fromIPR holders on 3rd party IPR disclosures

Larry's workflow for IPR disclosures is a good one. It however doesnt take
into account that IPR owners may not want to be publicly identified and may
have privacy legislation protecting them which the IETF's Policies cannot
mandate the violation of.

Its for this reason that the IPR process should not accept any 3rd party
notices,  and only accept notices of IPR from principals in those rights, or
their agents. It seems to me that anything else opens the IETF to privacy
litigation IMH lay opinion.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen <at> rosenlaw.com>
To: <ipr-wg <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 12:35 PM
Subject: RE: Issue #1238 Shoud secretariat ask for IPR clarification fromIPR
holders on 3rd party IPR disclosures

> I don't want to give IETF specific legal advice about what it should do to
> avoid "legal issues" when IPR claims are asserted or disclosed.

Why not? Aren't you an IP lawyer?

> But here's
> what I would do in the general case:
>
> 1. Take all claims seriously. Post them in an obvious place and ask
> technical people to read them. Ignorance is not necessarily bliss; that's
a
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
todd glassey | 4 Apr 22:31
Picon

Re: Resolution of #1245 - Does describing a technology require a license from the people who originally described it?

Ahahahah - Harald - then I think you got bad legal advice. But I am pretty
sure that neither good professional lawyers like Larry or Jorge would be
reckless enough to comment on the record that the IETF's processes were
fine, and by the way so you and I are real clear about this, nothing less
will meet the criteria of this commentary. You said you got formal legal
advice - fine prove it.

---

And Harald - hey, as long as we are at it, lets look  in Larry's acerbic
retort to me. In his backlash he answered nothing about the questions I
asked. What he did was to run the litany of  the specific sections of
Copyright Law that should protect a legitimate copyright holder, assuming
they had the resources to sue to protect those rights if they were infringed
upon, but in doing so he didn't answer any question regarding these uses.

So lets be real clear about this, its my understanding that the
implementation of any program based on a description in an IETF Draft or RFC
has to be licensed - the IETF's use is only to print copies for
standardization unless it wants to assume ownership of those other rights.
if Larry or Jorge can point out specific Points and Authorities on this that
supports their claims I would stand down on this immediately. So far they
have refused to do so though.

Exclusivity vs Non-exclusivity...
--------------------------------
But by the way Harald - didn't you and others tell me that the owners of the
IP retain all rights to it. Didn't Larry also retort to that as well???
well
then let me ask, how is that possible if the IETF's Trust has the right to
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane