Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt> (Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational RFC
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 10 May 2012 06:46 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99D9E21F85D3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 May 2012 23:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.582
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.109, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9ErLPdh-FyIK for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 May 2012 23:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com (mail-wg0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD77621F8570 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 May 2012 23:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wgbdr13 with SMTP id dr13so749408wgb.13 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 May 2012 23:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=lOo8EJw7/TItMw8/9eLE9EuEvb0PB8sY/TvPKW8L82U=; b=OmskEd8Qvm+wyXt35xjm4TMrtaYaya7fG9FrVV2s9Iwz1QCWP+nWJjb3VZoVlWT68k T+pAOYCscQG3WNuXy0GJfprqrgmsWp/uCEMh7i17O/MfLagyqJj0pwPh6VNZpr1I9VtH JFFfQLBJGIA8I6o7NJEh58LUoQuBKCk/m8I7GdwfT3mlsDRmDy4BSnz9fjoOdZ2cNUnw 8b42DQEmsCDrxoWhwwVf34zHPA0zfrdI3e+ixifjZ+YiyoiAIXuWUqFZlvFsfCBebn84 P25PkIg3BfqdVCEn5cQQmgZuYN3S6Xdy6K5u9VARKkUXTLFrwNStifPTkAFOuZ0zY8Ox 2rlw==
Received: by 10.180.97.4 with SMTP id dw4mr13205905wib.18.1336632386707; Wed, 09 May 2012 23:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.65] (host-2-102-216-118.as13285.net. [2.102.216.118]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l5sm1266732wia.11.2012.05.09.23.46.24 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 09 May 2012 23:46:25 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4FAB643C.108@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 07:46:20 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-05.txt> (Sanctions Available for Application to Violators of IETF IPR Policy) to Informational RFC
References: <20120507215610.10679.15815.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4FAA140B.4010703@gmail.com> <4FAAD14F.40009@qualcomm.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20120509150640.090d7098@resistor.net> <AEFA3A3E-F672-4522-BCF9-5D75DC82D112@cisco.com> <4FAB2563.3090309@qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FAB2563.3090309@qualcomm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Thu, 10 May 2012 06:46:28 -0000
On 2012-05-10 03:18, Pete Resnick wrote: > On 5/9/12 6:40 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > >>> I don't want participants to think that they can't bring up the issue >>> of violation without some sort of "burden of proof". >>> >> Hmm. >> >> I'm concerned about people bringing baseless accusations, as yet >> another way to DOS a WG with IPR. If a person believes that there is a >> violation that is worthy of the name, they should probably see to it >> that it gets discussed, but I don't see how they make that >> determination without having at least some data or report that can be >> verified. If someone in my working group brings such an accusation to >> me, trust me, the first question I am going to ask is "why do you >> believe that". If the answer is "can't you see they have shifty eyes", >> it will end there. I'm looking for at minimum that a named party has >> evidence to support it. > > I completely agree. That's why I asked that we figure out some text that > does both things: Indicate that it's OK to say that you believe someone > crossed the line and explain your reasons for that belief, but not > require that it be a proven fact before you can even broach the subject. > I can see how the current text might be too lax, but I thought Brian's > text was too stringent. Looking for a happy medium. 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. Brian
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions… Yoav Nir
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions… Yoav Nir
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions… SM
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions… Yoav Nir
- RE: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions… Adrian Farrel
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions… SM
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions… Pete Resnick
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions… SM
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions… Fred Baker
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions… Randy Bush
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions… Pete Resnick
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions… Livingood, Jason
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions… Mark Andrews
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions… Randy Bush
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions… SM
- Re: Last Call: <draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions… Hector Santos
- Leverage Patent Search API to reduce BCP79 relate… Hector Santos
- Re: Leverage Patent Search API to reduce BCP79 re… Nick Hilliard
- Re: Leverage Patent Search API to reduce BCP79 re… Russ Housley
- Re: Leverage Patent Search API to reduce BCP79 re… Martin Rex
- URI listing (was: Leverage Patent Search API to r… SM
- Re: Leverage Patent Search API to reduce BCP79 re… ned+ietf
- Re: Leverage Patent Search API to reduce BCP79 re… Dave Crocker