Re: RIM patents using a mime body in a message (and ignores IETF IPR rules)

Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> writes:
>
>   
>> On 2009-11-24 06:44, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>>     
>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:16:49 -0500
>>> Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Simon Josefsson allegedly wrote on 11/23/2009 5:03 AM:
>>>>         
>>>>> John-Luc said he is bound by confidentiality obligations from his
>>>>> company, and I think the same applies to most employees of larger
>>>>> organizations.  There is nothing explicit in BCP 79 to protect
>>>>> against this apparent conflict of interest, or is there?
>>>>>           
>>>>    Since disclosure is required
>>>>    for anyone submitting documents or participating in IETF
>>>> discussions, a person who does not 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.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Precisely.  The conflict Simon mentions was of course known to most of
>>> the WG; that's one reason we have that clause.
>>>       
>> IMHO, BCP79 creates no particular problem for corporate lawyers who
>> are instructed by their corporate management to ensure that the company
>> behaves as a good citizen in its standards activities. This is strongly
>> in the company's interests, anyway, since failure to disclose when
>> required by a standards process threatens the validity of the patent.
>>     
>
> There is no requirement in the IETF process for organizations to
> disclose patents as far as I can see.  The current approach of only
> having people participate, and disclose patents, in the IETF is easy to
> work around by having two persons in an organization doing different
> things: one works on specifying and standardizing technology, and the
> other is working on patenting the technology.
>
>   
Hi Simon,

This is certainly correct in principles. But to which extent the IETF 
disclosure approach "is easy to work around by having two persons ..." 
is a matter of appreciation.

My understanding is that it is not easy to arrange protocol engineer 
rolls in such a way. I'm quite sure you don't have a clear case which 
you can refer to support the opposite view. The reason I am confident is 
that both inventor status and an IETF contributor require creativity in 
general. The IETF collective engineering faces technological challenges 
like any other design group.

I guess it is not realistic to expect managers to send protocol 
engineers with little creativity traits to the IETF in order to preserve 
the ability to file patent applications without disclosure.
>> It really is not the IETF's problem. It is a problem for a company that
>> chooses not to behave as a good citizen.
>>     
>
> The situation remains that the IETF does not have any mechanism to apply
> pressure on organizations to disclose patent information.
>
>   
This is certainly correct, but I am afraid the cause is more profound 
than the above IPR disclosure work around. Specifically, the Qualcom vs 
Broadcom case on JVT over H.264 IPR would have taught corporate lawyers 
that a standardization body membership contract binding to the 
corporation is a must for IPR disclosure enforcement against the 
corporation. (I am not a lawyer ...) The IETF does not use this approach.

Regards,

- Thierry Moreau
> /Simon
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>   