Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 30 April 2016 20:35 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64A4A12D17F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Apr 2016 13:35:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aqauF9GOl5sq for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Apr 2016 13:35:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22e.google.com (mail-pa0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC70A12D128 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Apr 2016 13:35:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id r5so59986386pag.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Apr 2016 13:35:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FVLl/Ka4z3etut4veDY7S6B04NnbvSwkx16IQwrKr4o=; b=GSdAq2CKOeYSjHQKpEBSBoK4sUbimz+xlUPrJHS7styuWKZCi5plYQZxYJcT0KBEgL 5mShzQdQc7ElU1PajOCG6po0wUnBZLc5DWYNd6Kq7X7KsdJsDwRlYRlFunkr8mKugC6L 740ltsMIajung287sWZ2cu4h+evUxlXjaKWZxAI0SrkNVtzp979XNTfCue6WtdHoFYxj zTNgKVdl1DOXejUraZlwY6zyMnMldngoj7wpHnc4HBZAJtxfg6jxzs6kNYrHSqcRxDwV WKefYe7kcnYYXxQvE0s0YIbPCqT8ABw1LjjxdBGki9nhe1gEa2WIjcnFjN/DAdtPzQ4b Tt+g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=FVLl/Ka4z3etut4veDY7S6B04NnbvSwkx16IQwrKr4o=; b=SZzx2eI2cUEKh5J2n/9ZmWu6R1uCoRbyKtPSSuay4ke+/4g1Fdu+7bdwkBtSO4L75B fIm+TnghZvPvvYIv2dNTewzq7rqfybMp8lo4Ayz7LXysyltpd2dqzkraYrJszNrM5jRn HhDW1sKAGBe6PlenxhBEU+ZTpzv2DJ/6SJlkBxwfpeY3tNCFjURZK/mvpB5/lY8gS6GF DhwtEQ1WF+f58aWwged8H5RxskCcaAlf2mxql6EpzfSb4UDeT5HR0UZB1OI9cpyK0+0j rRdXgqJuMYt5Sbn+krHN4+coFCfvrz34rVZO8bH9MMCHHoqj6IdcP++HAp2BtVeP0Eou PVYQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FURFQrt/utNp+b8mK8oOFrO2m71hI/u4i6PCv7XCbxaGWALI64rdpW9+owgVVJqkg==
X-Received: by 10.66.146.164 with SMTP id td4mr39214879pab.47.1462048557242; Sat, 30 Apr 2016 13:35:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:4037:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:4037:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d78sm33407016pfb.59.2016.04.30.13.35.54 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 30 Apr 2016 13:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
References: <0000431F-F977-4A24-BA4D-064F740977A0@piuha.net> <E7E31E22-1C86-40C4-BC5B-F65132015EF5@qti.qualcomm.com> <6CA3C554-0FF6-4779-80B9-C75698FB61C1@piuha.net> <EC4CBF0D-1B7C-4FB5-85EA-E622B24E9B9A@stewe.org> <9AFC22D7-C509-4765-AAC9-3096F188C4C6@qti.qualcomm.com> <57247534.3060609@gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <bba3bcb2-fc0f-45e9-dd83-e96b715e7a02@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 08:35:48 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <57247534.3060609@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2Sk_zjP_7Kgnk60gDTc-OqJefoY>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 20:35:59 -0000

On 30/04/2016 21:04, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> 
>    l. "Reasonably and personally known": means something an individual
>       knows personally or, because of the job the individual holds,
>       would reasonably be expected to know.  This wording is used to
>       indicate that an organization cannot purposely keep an individual
>       in the dark about patents or patent applications just to avoid the
>       disclosure requirement.  But this requirement should not be
>       interpreted as requiring the IETF Contributor or Participant (or
>       his or her represented organization, if any) to perform a patent
>       search to find applicable IPR.
> 
> 
> How do we deal with the case of a an individual that was exposed to IPR in a previous
> employment, but no longer having access to the records of that employer is
> uncertain about whether they know of such IPR? A third party disclosure is one
> solution, but without access to records it may not be possible to sufficiently
> identify the patent such that the legal department can file the disclosure.

So the individual does a voluntary disclosure based on what she happens
to remember, and then her obligation is satisfied. We have no control
over what non-participants at her previous employer do.

> 
> 6. Failure to Disclose
> 
>    There may be cases in which individuals are not permitted by their
>    employers or by other factors to disclose the existence or substance
>    of patent applications or other IPR.  Since disclosure is required
>    for anyone making a Contribution or participating in IETF activities,
>    a person who is not willing or able to disclose IPR for this reason,
>    or any other reason, must not contribute to or participate in IETF
>    activities with respect to technologies that he or she reasonably and
>    personally knows to be Covered by IPR which he or she will not
>    disclose, unless that person knows that his or her employer or
>    sponsor will make the required disclosures on his or her behalf.
> 
>    Contributing to or participating in IETF activities about a
>    technology without making required IPR disclosures is a violation of
>    IETF process.
> 
>    In addition to any remedies the IESG may consider other actions. See
>    [RFC6701] for details.
> 
> 
> This assumes that the individual intends to support the technology that they
> know to be encumbered.
> 
> Surely we need to also consider the case of an individual that although unable
> to disclose IPR without breaching confidentiality is arguing for an alternative
> unencumbered solution.

What's the difference? If you participate, you must disclose. I agree it
would be an annoying situation for the individual.

> 
> We also need to visit the matter of licence fees.
> 
> The IETF has a policy of not discussing licence terms, and in particular licence fees
> in determining whether a technology is to be adopted or avoided.

Where does it say that? What I read is the opposite:

"    A. Since IPR disclosures will be used by IETF working groups during
     their evaluation of alternative technical solutions, it is helpful
     if an IPR disclosure includes information about licensing of the
     IPR in case Implementing Technologies require a license...."

   Brian


> This policy does
> not properly consider the extremity of the range of devices we support. What is
> technically the best solution for a $1m router despite a significant licence fee
> may not be viable for $0.01 IoT sensor because of the licence fee. Yet the WG is
> not permitted to discuss those economics.
> 
> - Stewart
> 
> 
> 
> 
>