Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal

Dean -
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dean Anderson" <dean@av8.com>
To: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <wbeebee@cisco.com>
Cc: "IETF Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 10:28 PM
Subject: RE: Blue Sheet Change Proposal

> Speaking as president of the LPF; not a lawyer but a knowledgeable
> layman.
>
> I think you are correct that the patent issue is a red herring.

No its not.

> The
> patentee has the _right_ (not the obligation) to keep patent application
> contents secret.

Sure but not when they submit that IP to others to get their 'contributed 
work product' added into that IP.

So in response to your commentary, "No Dean they do not because that would 
constitute an act of fraud by the party Submaringing the Patent in that they 
are 'extorting through an apparent agreement as to joint ownership of the 
IP' to that newly developed IP. But further since the patent filing itself 
is now public there is no concern for public disclosure.

> Failure to keep the secret merely causes them to lose
> the _right_ to trade secret status.

Yes but the public disclosure of an IP issue starts certain clocks running 
and this is a the real issue. What that means is that the IETF cannot 
process anything with Trade-Secret Status.

> They might want that status in the
> event the patent application is rejected.

But that wouldnt have anything to do with the issue of whether the failure 
to disclose IP ownership defrauds the other participants in an IP effort of 
their rights to the derivative's and fruit of their own labor.

> They lose the trade secret
> right if the patent is granted, when the patent application is published
> 18 months after filing, or if they disclose the information publicly, or
> if someone _independently_ rediscovers the secret. Obviously, if they
> are trying to standardize the patent, they can't have trade-secret
> status anyway: the "secret" is publicly disclosed in the draft text.
> So the issue of disclosure is moot.
>
> I have no opinion on whether blue sheet changes are a good idea or a bad
> idea for other reasons.  Generally, though, my experience and view is
> that truth and disclosure is always a good thing for the public
> interest.
>
> --Dean
>
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote:
>
>> Regarding the legal issues - if the sessions are broadcast over the
>> Internet, and freely downloadable (w/o specifying or tracking who was
>> downloading them), how can you be certain that someone was NOT aware
>> of certain IPR?  Also, if someone was in the room, how can you be
>> certain they WERE aware of certain IPR?  The only thing that the IETF
>> can say is that every contribution to the IETF is considered to be
>> publically disclosed, and this is indeed what the Note Well says.
>>
>> It seems to me that the IPR concerns are a red herring.
>>
>> - Wes
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Eric Burger
>> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 8:07 PM
>> To: IETF Discussion
>> Subject: Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
>>
>> Two purposes for Blue Sheets:
>>
>> 1. Redundant data entry: Quite often, the name is illegible, while the
>> e-mail is legible.  We don't care about the e-mail address, what we
>> really care about is who was there.  IMHO, this is the important use for
>> capturing the e-mail address.
>>
>> 2. Legal issues: When the inevitable patent dispute happens, we WILL get
>> served to report who was in the room when a particular subject was
>> discussed.  Other standards bodies have had this problem, if we haven't
>> had it, it means our time is near :-(
>>
>>
>> On 4/3/08 4:22 PM, "Mark Andrews" <Mark_Andrews@isc.org> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> All,
>> >>
>> >> We are considering changing the meeting Blue Sheet by eliminating the
>>
>> >> need to enter an email address to avoid spam concerns.
>> >>
>> >> Is there any good reason to retain that info bit?
>> >>
>> >> Ray
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> IETF mailing list
>> >> IETF@ietf.org
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>> >
>> >         It's is the only unique token on the blue sheets.  This
>> >         assumes no shared email accounts which is a pretty reasonable
>> >         assumption in this case.
>> >
>> >         Mark
>> > --
>> > Mark Andrews, ISC
>> > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>> > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@isc.org
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > IETF mailing list
>> > IETF@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>> >
>>
>>
>> Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
>> information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated
>> entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or
>> legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
>> or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
>> and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
>> by email and then delete it.
>> _______________________________________________
>> IETF mailing list
>> IETF@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>> _______________________________________________
>> IETF mailing list
>> IETF@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
> www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
> 617 344 9000
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF mailing list
> IETF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf 

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf