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

Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> Mon, 23 November 2009 10:46 UTC

Return-Path: <dave@cridland.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CADF3A6A44 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:46:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L8YJb9qRxRkj for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:46:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from peirce.dave.cridland.net (peirce.dave.cridland.net [217.155.137.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1C233A6A40 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:46:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by peirce.dave.cridland.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9955230003; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:46:51 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at peirce.dave.cridland.net
Received: from peirce.dave.cridland.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (peirce.dave.cridland.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3CjFie1iLeph; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:46:50 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from puncture (puncture.local [IPv6:2001:838:378:0:221:85ff:fe3f:1696]) by peirce.dave.cridland.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9FFBC230002; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:46:50 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: RIM patents using a mime body in a message (and ignores IETF IPR rules)
References: <487AB12E-FD4A-4AD5-8641-17B4B64C6F8F@cisco.com> <4B04A9C5.6060904@gmail.com> <5F5E5CDB0670267DF04D9561@PST.JCK.COM> <01NG9VCEWETC0002QL@mauve.mrochek.com> <A6741735F236784CBB00AAD60DCED23F034FE5CB@XCH02DFW.rim.net> <20091120151251.B04DCF2403F@odin.smetech.net> <87iqd1v9qq.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org>
In-Reply-To: <87iqd1v9qq.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <9463.1258973210.697181@puncture>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:46:50 +0000
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
To: Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>, IETF-Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; delsp="yes"; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:46:59 -0000

On Mon Nov 23 10:03:25 2009, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> 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?

Being horribly naïve, I'd have thought that it was obvious that if  
you cannot satisfy both your obligations as an employee, and your  
obligations as an IETF participant, then one or other rôle has to be  
dropped - ie, either you quit your job, or cease to participate  
within the IETF. I simply don't see what other solution there is, or  
could be, and I don't see what on earth BCP 79 could usefully say.

So, as of now, it seems manifest that any RIM employees should not be  
participating within the IETF until they have resolved this conflict  
- indeed, I get the sense that this is RIM's decision, from the  
statements that RIM employees have made on this list.

As I say, though, I am horribly naïve in my understanding of the word  
"obligation", and I do appreciate that some organizations exist which  
might put pressure on employees to participate in willful disregard  
for the IPR rules. I also appreciate that those individuals affected  
- especially in these times - would then be placed in a very  
uncomfortable position - one I'm very glad not to be in.

The problem is, though, that an organization in such a position will  
end up eventually be seen to be in such a position, meaning that they  
are in the position of RIM as I outline above. That is, if the  
intention is to take commercial advantage of ignoring the IETF's  
rules for participants, then when such advantage is taken, it'll be  
obvious that the rules have indeed been ignored, and will threaten  
their ability to further participate.

There is an argument that RIM employees should be removed from all  
IETF mailing lists until such time as RIM publically states they  
shall henceforth follow IETF IPR rules, and order their employees to  
do the same. This has happened to individuals before, when they have  
clearly stated that they cannot follow the Note Well, and in this  
case the employees are clearly stating much the same. I'd like to  
think that this is not required - that, in effect, RIM have taken  
more or less this decision themselves - but I do look forward to  
RIM's explanation of how they intend to resolve the apparent conflict  
of obligations they have foisted upon their employees.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@cridland.net - xmpp:dwd@dave.cridland.net
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade