Re: [alto] IPR Disclosure Carlos Pignataro's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-alto-deployments belonging to Alcatel Lucent

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

I don’t personally know anything about this technology or the patents in question. Also, IANAL and I don’t plan to play on this list. However, a couple of process or general clarifications may be in order.

First, anybody can (but does not have to) make third party declaration, if he or she is aware of IPR that might cover the draft in question. No search is necessary to do this, as a person may just be aware of an IPR for some reason.

Second, if you are interested in a particular technology you probably need to assess patent declarations in some fashion. The IESG does not validate them in any way, nor do we in any organised fashion check them at working groups either. But, they may affect individual assessments to “is this the technology that I want to standardise in the working group”? Hence Mirja’s email to the list and her question if it changes something. Sometimes the answer is that new information about IPR causes a change in your assessment. Sometimes it doesn’t cause a change. There are also IPR declarations where you know there’s prior art. Or IPR declarations where your assessment may be that it does not cover the technology in question, despite what the declaration says.

Third, be aware what constitutes a patent actually covering your technology. In patents there are for instance usually tons of references to existing practices and background. Mere mention of technology in a patent document doesn’t render it covered.

Fourth, people who are actual contributors in the working group have a stricter requirement to file declarations than others. If a contributor believes an IPR that they are personally aware of covers the technology, he or she must make an IPR declaration. The lack of an IPR declaration might either mean that the rule was not followed, or that the contributor simply does not believe the IPR covers the technology.

Jari