headers
TS Glassey | 2 Oct 23:35
Picon
Favicon

The IPR page functionality needcs help.

Folks- I needed to update our IPR again today to include DNSSEC operations,
and in doing so I noticed the following;

    1)    ONLY US Style Phone Numbers are accepted and they seem
2B length delimited. This is sloppy and ignores the use of periods as
field-separator's in phone number's.

    2)    There also is no real way to include a complete list of concerned
infringer's notice, and what I am referring to is that the form assumes you
will type in all of the names of the RFC's which offend, but it doesn't
allow one to pull up a list. The other issue is the need to get the term RFC
prefaced on the filing. We should assume if a number is the only parsable
item on that line then its an RFC number.

Just my two cents.

---
Personal Disclaimers Apply

TS Glassey
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Tom Petch | 3 Oct 10:37

Re: Last Call for comments on "IETF Trust Legal Provisions" (dated09-19-08)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Henrik Levkowetz" <henrik <at> levkowetz.com>
To: "Ed Juskevicius" <edj <at> nortel.com>
Cc: "Trustees" <trustees <at> ietf.org>; <ipr-wg <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: Last Call for comments on "IETF Trust Legal Provisions"
(dated09-19-08)

>
>
> On 2008-09-22 16:36 Ed Juskevicius said the following:
> ...
> > Please view this message as the last call for comments.  A complete
> > version of the proposed policy, including the new text for Section 4.c
> > has been posted to the Trustee's website at:
> > http://trustee.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html .  The vintage of the
> > documents being last-called is 09-19-08.
>
> I just checked this again, to verify the text from the viewpoint of updating
> idnits, and this version looks OK to me from that viewpoint.  Good.
>
>
> However, I then imagined including the boilerplate text in a draft of mine,
> and realized that although I have a fair grasp of english, I'm not really
> comfortable with the phrase 'pursuant to', in this boilerplate text:
>
> "This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF pursuant to, and in full
> conformance with, the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79."
>
> Well, there are dictionaries, so look it up, man! I think to myself.  However,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
TS Glassey | 3 Oct 17:36
Picon
Favicon

The IETF policy needs to be expanded for two types of IPR Declarations.

Folks
The problem the IETF and its Management Face is that the creation of the IPR
process is not well, and IETF document's are regularly published by the IETF
without any understanding as to what those publishing events do to the
larger picture of the IP and its license.

IPR Design Flaws
----------------------
The IPR page has some interesting failings and the one that is really
important is that it blends "forward looking license statements" not
particular to any specific or existing IP with actual IPR disclosures in
with real Disclosure Statements regarding already existing IP controls
making it difficult to search that IPR DB for actually important IPR Claims.

Here is a specific filings from the NSA that is properly
done: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/858/; and here is a filing that
is essentially meaningless - its a political statement about
events not disclosed and so it has no effect here except to
say that they intend to play nice. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/170/

This architecture of IP Process makes it virtually impossible to search the
IPR DB for issues which may pertain to an initiative not yet or already
under way inside the IETF. That is a failing which is unacceptable since it
renders the IPR Process effectively useless as too costly to perform
for each document filed with the IETF as part of a Standards Practice.

In closing, this "blending of useless info" with specific patent information 
just
complicates the practice and document's the lack of design forethought that
went into the IPR Page and its workflow processes.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Harald Alvestrand | 13 Oct 09:42
Picon

Re: [Trustees] Last Call for comments on "IETF Trust Legal Provisions" (dated 09-19-08)

Contreras, Jorge wrote:
> I have no objection to removing "pursuant to". 
>   
Shorter boilerplate is good. Let's do it. (Trust decides, of course.)
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
TS Glassey | 24 Oct 17:27
Picon
Favicon

placing a dollar value on IETF IP.

Since there is now a specific value estimated by the LINUX community at 1.4B 
for the kernel itself, the IETF can no longer hide its head in the sand 
claiming that its workproduct has no specific value. This also means that 
ANY AND ALL contributions to the IETF no matter when they happened now need 
to be formally acknowledged for their financial value at the time of their 
contribution.

This is not an OPTION.

Todd Glassey
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
TS Glassey | 24 Oct 17:33
Picon
Favicon

Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.

Ooops - forgot the link too the story on the valuation of the LINUX Kernel.

http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/smb/?p=107&nr=dye
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "TS Glassey" <tglassey <at> earthlink.net>
To: "IETF Discussion" <ietf <at> ietf.org>; <ipr-wg <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 8:27 AM
Subject: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.

> Since there is now a specific value estimated by the LINUX community at 
> 1.4B for the kernel itself, the IETF can no longer hide its head in the 
> sand claiming that its workproduct has no specific value. This also means 
> that ANY AND ALL contributions to the IETF no matter when they happened 
> now need to be formally acknowledged for their financial value at the time 
> of their contribution.
>
> This is not an OPTION.
>
> Todd Glassey
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Tim Bray | 24 Oct 17:42
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 8:27 AM, TS Glassey <tglassey <at> earthlink.net> wrote:
> Since there is now a specific value estimated by the LINUX community at 1.4B
> for the kernel itself

Hey, I've done an analysis and found that my toenail clippings are
worth $3.8762 billion.  That kernel-valuation exercise is the silliest
kind of science fiction.  Let me let you in on a little secret:
Everything in the world has a value, and that value is exactly what
people are prepared to pay for it.  No more, no less.

On payment of a generous consulting fee, I would be delighted to
"estimate a specific value" for any given RFC or even I-D.  I'll even
issue gold-framed certificates you can mount on the wall.  -Tim

> , the IETF can no longer hide its head in the sand
> claiming that its workproduct has no specific value. This also means that
> ANY AND ALL contributions to the IETF no matter when they happened now need
> to be formally acknowledged for their financial value at the time of their
> contribution.
>
> This is not an OPTION.
>
> Todd Glassey
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Fred Baker | 25 Oct 02:37
Picon
Favicon

Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.


On Oct 24, 2008, at 11:42 PM, Tim Bray wrote:

> On payment of a generous consulting fee, I would be delighted to
> "estimate a specific value" for any given RFC or even I-D.  I'll even
> issue gold-framed certificates you can mount on the wall.  -Tim

I have a suggestion. Let's start with RFC 968. Like all RFCs, I tend  
to think it is priceless.

And let's keep this off the IETF list, OK? it belongs on ietf-ipr, and  
is off-topic everywhere else.
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
TS Glassey | 25 Oct 16:02
Picon
Favicon

Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.

The IPR WG suspended me for trying to broach it there Fred so what wouold 
you suggest as a place to discuss this Fred?

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Baker" <fred <at> cisco.com>
To: <ipr-wg <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.

>
> On Oct 24, 2008, at 11:42 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
>
>> On payment of a generous consulting fee, I would be delighted to
>> "estimate a specific value" for any given RFC or even I-D.  I'll even
>> issue gold-framed certificates you can mount on the wall.  -Tim
>
> I have a suggestion. Let's start with RFC 968. Like all RFCs, I tend
> to think it is priceless.
>
> And let's keep this off the IETF list, OK? it belongs on ietf-ipr, and
> is off-topic everywhere else.
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Andrew G. Malis | 25 Oct 23:53
Picon

Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.

Todd,

I generally agree with Tim that it would be difficult to put a value
on any IETF submission without an actual transfer of assets of some
sort to set a price.

However, in general, if a company feels that there is IPR value in
technology they are going to include in a submission (and this really
deals with ANY kind of standards submission, not just to the IETF),
they will most probably submit a patent application prior to the
standards submission. So the existence of a patent declaration
accompanying the submission at least provides a clue that the
submitting company feels that there is some value there (else they
wouldn't have bothered with the patent application).

However, a value generally can't be set until the company actually
starts to issue patent licenses. The value could be as little as zero
if no other companies feel compelled to license the technology.

As always, the "value of the workproduct", as you put it, is set by the market.

Cheers,
Andy

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Tim Bray <tbray <at> textuality.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 8:27 AM, TS Glassey <tglassey <at> earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Since there is now a specific value estimated by the LINUX community at 1.4B
>> for the kernel itself
>
> Hey, I've done an analysis and found that my toenail clippings are
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane