Re: [Asrg] RE: ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam patents: Partial list)
Yakov Shafranovich <research@solidmatrix.com> Thu, 26 June 2003 21:09 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21796 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:09:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5QL8XL32162 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:08:33 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vdyr-0008Me-Ba for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:08:33 -0400
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21763; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:08:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19VdyL-00089Q-LV; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:08:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Vdx9-0007u5-C2 for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:07:17 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21706 for <Asrg@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:06:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vdx7-00062e-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:06:45 -0400
Received: from 000-232-438.area5.spcsdns.net ([68.27.147.29] helo=68.27.147.29) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Vdwu-00062Z-00 for Asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:06:34 -0400
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030626170451.00b9aee0@std5.imagineis.com>
X-Sender: research@solidmatrix.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9
To: Peter Kay <peter@titankey.com>, Paul Judge <paul.judge@ciphertrust.com>, Asrg@ietf.org
From: Yakov Shafranovich <research@solidmatrix.com>
Subject: Re: [Asrg] RE: ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam patents: Partial list)
In-Reply-To: <DD198B5D07F04347B7266A3F35C42B0B0D8CD2@io.cybercom.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-MimeHeaders-Plugin-Info: v2.03.00
X-GCMulti: 1
Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/asrg/>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:05:18 -0400
I added the policy to the IPR document at: http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html At 06:36 AM 6/13/2003 -1000, Peter Kay wrote: >This is good. Are you going to post it somewhere permanent? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul Judge [mailto:paul.judge@ciphertrust.com] > > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 5:46 PM > > To: 'Yakov Shafranovich'; Peter Kay; 'Asrg@ietf.org' > > Subject: ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam patents: Partial list) > > > > > > > > We have decided to adopt the following IPR policy for the > > ASRG. It is based on the IETF's IPR policy as outlined in RFC 2026. > > > > > > "By submission of a contribution, each person actually submitting the > > contribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and > > conditions > > on his own behalf, on behalf of the organization (if any) he > > represents and on behalf of the owners of any propriety > > rights in the > > contribution.. Where a submission identifies contributors in > > addition to the contributor(s) who provide the actual > > submission, the > > actual submitter(s) represent that each other named contributor was > > made aware of and agreed to accept the same terms and conditions on > > his own behalf, on behalf of any organization he may represent and > > any known owner of any proprietary rights in the contribution. > > > > The contributor represents that he has disclosed the existence of > > any proprietary or intellectual property rights in the > > contribution that are reasonably and personally known to the > > contributor. The contributor does not represent that he > > personally knows of all potentially pertinent proprietary and > > intellectual property rights owned or claimed by the > > organization > > he represents (if any) or third parties." > > > > This means that the person submitting a proposal is > > responsible for stating any relevant IPR that he knows about > > even if he is not the holder of the rights. This does allow > > for other members to notify a contributor about relevant IPR > > after the initial submission. The contributor should then > > disclose this information in revisions of the contribution. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research@solidmatrix.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 2:42 PM > > > To: Peter Kay; Asrg@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list > > > > > > > > > At 06:32 AM 6/12/2003 -1000, Peter Kay wrote: > > > > > > >IMHO: as an a holder of a anti-spam patent pending, I think > > > its best to > > > >let IPR holders approach us. Otherwise you put yourself in the > > > >unenviable position of "authority" on patents. If you just > > > say "these > > > >are the IPR claims that have been submitted to us" that > > > makes it clean > > > >and simple, not to mention easy to maintain. > > > > > > In some cases this would not be true. Take MailBlocks, for > > > example - they > > > are claiming patents on all C/R systems. They have not > > > approached, and > > > since their IP is of very general nature, thus we must > > > approach them to > > > solicit a submission of IPR claims which is what I have done. > > > Otherwise, we > > > might be working on a standard only to find out that it is > > > patented. As for > > > the patents that are covering every nook and cranny of > > > anti-spam, I am > > > agreeing with you. It would be an impossible task to catalog > > > all patents in > > > the world. > > > > > > Therefore, I am suggesting that we should have the following > > > policy: 1. Solicit input from IP holders on very broad > > > business methods patents > > > such as the MailBlocks patents. > > > 2. Request that all members of the group that have IP, submit > > > information > > > about it. > > > 3. Accept submissions from IPR claimants that are not part of > > > the group as > > > they send them. > > > > > > P.S. BTW, Peter, it would probably be prudent that you let us > > > know some > > > details on your IP. Feel free to use the template > > > (http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html). > > > > > > Yakov > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Asrg mailing list > > > Asrg@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Asrg mailing list >Asrg@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
- [Asrg] ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam patents: … Paul Judge
- RE: [Asrg] ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam paten… Yakov Shafranovich
- RE: [Asrg] ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam paten… Bob Wyman
- [Asrg] RE: ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam paten… Peter Kay
- Re: [Asrg] ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam paten… Kee Hinckley
- Re: [Asrg] RE: ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam p… Yakov Shafranovich