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

Michael Cameron <> Mon, 04 April 2016 16:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F68412D7BA for <>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 09:46:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rutX19dRuOSU for <>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 09:46:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C44212D7A1 for <>; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 09:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f79fa6d0000057a9-c3-57029a24bf1d
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 28.D4.22441.42A92075; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 18:45:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 12:46:00 -0400
From: Michael Cameron <>
To: John C Klensin <>, Barry Leiba <>, Stephan Wenger <>
Subject: RE: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
Thread-Topic: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")
Thread-Index: AQHRjnfzmax8zcYcXU2c7vOCh1JumZ96HvaAgAADXICAAANHAIAAFokA///B3YA=
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 16:46:00 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> < om> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupjkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLrHT1dlFlO4wYS34haHFl9itXi2cT6L ReulP2wW1xs3sTuweLSs6mX2WLLkJ5PH5ZWvmT0Wr3/PGMASxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJUxcedx 9oJ/HBUL7s1lbmBcwd7FyMkhIWAi0du8nwXCFpO4cG89WxcjF4eQwFFGiVNTlrGBJIQEljFK bOiv6mLk4GADanj+DKxeRKBQ4uq3CUwgNrOAhMT1Ce/AbGGBfIn7N3pZIWoKJM7/PcgC0ioi 4CfxfGUOSJhFQEVi7uZuRhCbV8BXYt/Pu1Br57NIPJy2lhkkwSlgJfF3XRuYzQh02/dTa6B2 iUvcejKfCeJmAYkle84zQ9iiEi8f/2OFsBUl9vVPZ4eo15FYsPsTG4StLbFs4WtmiMWCEidn PmGZwCg2C8nYWUhaZiFpmYWkZQEjyypGjtLigpzcdCPDTYzAWDomwea4g3Fvr+chRgEORiUe 3gWnGMOFWBPLiitzDzFKcDArifBunsYULsSbklhZlVqUH19UmpNafIhRmoNFSZzXO/JfmJBA emJJanZqakFqEUyWiYNTqoFxW8fpmbz7ppzhLWVbx5ZWGfd3AZdC2DfWyIZYUYbbT77OOSpe uit366/Ktt0+uecXXP0iyqV5tnHVl6s7qu05CxL5LQSVQ5RkY55P/ezSwfV3S+3PP2+3znlw rHWqs+Zp8fN+YrdCHe8entfxa/OtDDvOi3uv7W/aYeBivSVKzmSR5olvH2ZxK7EUZyQaajEX FScCALlD+eChAgAA
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2016 16:46:09 -0000

"A best, good faith effort" would place on Participants the highest legal standard of care--possibly requiring an AD or WG chair to affirmatively search their IP portfolio and map the claims (~20 claims per patent) of each relevant patent against each IETF draft in their domain. Is it realistic to think that Cisco, Juniper, Huawei and others similarly situated would retain an army of IP professionals just to ensure that the AD/WG chair can meet this standard? Or will these companies just require that their employees no longer "Participate" in IETF activities?

As far as non-IETF sanctions, you are probably thinking of the Rambus-JEDEC matter. I am not aware of any situation where an IETF Participant has consciously hidden patents while pushing an IETF standard, and then, once the standard has been adopted, asserted the patents.  So long as a Participant is an active participant, that is, someone actively pushing the Contribution in some fashion, and not someone who "should have known", and is then consciously aware of possible IPR, only then does the duty to disclose arise. 

Best, Mike