From: Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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> <4B0A8B41.30005@gmail.com>
 <20091123124442.46510698@gg1.cs.columbia.edu> <4B11A797.5080905@gmail.com>
 <871vjgujwz.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> <4B143A31.2070707@gmail.com>
 <87vdgrezcb.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> <4B1591E6.1020108@gmail.com>
OpenPGP: id=B565716F; url=http://josefsson.org/key.txt
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:19:15 +0100
In-Reply-To: <4B1591E6.1020108@gmail.com> (Brian E. Carpenter's message of
 "Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:00:06 +1300")
Message-ID: <871vjdqx0c.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: list

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> writes:

> On 2009-12-01 23:57, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Simon Josefsson allegedly wrote on 11/30/2009 10:11 AM:
>>>> 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.
>>> Simon, from rfc3979:
>>>
>>>    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.
>> 
>> I don't see how this modifies anything?  The legal obligation is on the
>> IETF participant, not on the organization.  The organization is not
>> bound by this text.
>
> IANAL. But if the participant is acting as an agent of the employer,
> it seems to me that the employer is bound. In any case, you'd have to be
> a brave or reckless employee not to assume that to be the case. You'd also
> have to be a very obtuse employer to fund your employees to participate
> if you didn't like the IETF's rules.

Now you are moving the responsibility on to the organizations.  I can't
see how that modify my assertion that the IETF does not have any legal
means to pressure organization to file patent disclosures.  Either the
IETF has a legal ability to apply pressure on organizations, or it does
not.  I don't see why that is a controversial statement.  Nothing in the
IETF history suggests it even wants to have a legal link to
organizations who sends participants to the IETF.  The text in RFC 3979
and other documents suggests strongly that this approach is intentional.

/Simon