Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt> (Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational RFC

[Hector Santos <[e-mail]>]

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
> Fair enough. I can't agree with SM though - as for appeals under RFC 2026,
> the person bringing up an issue really has to provide a factual summary,
> exactly to avoid witch hunts. It can be very short:
> 
>    Hi, I noticed that US Patent 12345 was filed in March 2010, and
>    draft-blo-foobar was posted that June, and Jo Blo was an author
>    of both. It looks as if they describe the same method, so why
>    wasn't there an IPR disclosure in 2010? Would the WG Chairs consider
>    sanctions against Jo Blo appropriate?
> 
> Possible text:
> 
>    Any IETF participant can draw attention to an apparent violation
>    of the IETF's IPR policy.  This can be done by sending email to
>    the appropriate IETF mailing list, including a short summary of
>    the known facts and, optionally, a call for sanctions to be
>    applied.

+1.

I think the major part of the issue is the growing potential and ease 
to violate BCP79 section 6.2.1 in regards to belated patent filings 
after contributions are made as your above "Jo Blo" scenario reflects.

With the relaxation of patentability guidelines, software/business 
methods and availability of low cost Provisional Patents, it is far 
easier to fall trap to violation BCP79 6.2.1

Provisional Patents is the cheapest way to begin the patent process 
allowing up to one year to complete the full patent. This is an ideal 
way to first test the market which also legally allows the usage of 
"Patent Pending" in marketing material.  If the I-D gets no interest, 
then there is little cost (less than $200) lost to forget about the 
work.  In one year, the provisional patent expires.  There is 
strategic value not to disclose IP related information in the I-D 
perhaps to maximize interest and perhaps this is a IETF new dilemma 
the draft should also focus on and address.

For example, in the draft 2.1, the 3rd paragraph talks about 
"Timeliness" and specifically states:

    The timeliness of disclosure is very important within [BCP79].  No
    precise definition of "timeliness" is given in [BCP79] and it is not
    the purpose of this document to do so.

However, where provisional patent filings are in play, there is at 
least 1 year allowance and incentive to not disclose and that could be 
a problem depending on the speed and interest of the I-D development. 
The draft intro can highlight belated IPR disclosures and section 2.1 
first paragraph, for example, can add:

    According to [BCP79], individual IETF participants have a
    personal responsibility to disclose or ensure the timely disclosure
    of IPR of which they are aware or plan to create .....

So overall, more text emphasizing specifically BC979 section 6.2.1 to 
help highlight the awareness for document authors with a goal to lower 
the concerns of implementators who are watchful of protocols having 
current IPR disclosures and now belated IPR disclosure issues which 
much easier to occur today.

-- 
HLS