RE: RIM patents using a mime body in a message (and ignores IETF IPR rules)

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Fri, 20 November 2009 15:13 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF4733A68CC for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:13:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.255
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.255 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.344, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id clJ674pia9dY for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:13:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A84628C17C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:12:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5406F2403E; Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:12:52 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TdlDSMMInkJ0; Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:12:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from THINKPADR52.vigilsec.com (pool-173-66-67-45.washdc.fios.verizon.net [173.66.67.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B04DCF2403F; Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:12:51 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:12:48 -0500
To: "John-Luc Bakker" <jbakker@rim.com>
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Subject: RE: RIM patents using a mime body in a message (and ignores IETF IPR rules)
In-Reply-To: <A6741735F236784CBB00AAD60DCED23F034FE5CB@XCH02DFW.rim.net>
References: <487AB12E-FD4A-4AD5-8641-17B4B64C6F8F@cisco.com> <4B04A9C5.6060904@gmail.com> <5F5E5CDB0670267DF04D9561@PST.JCK.COM> <01NG9VCEWETC0002QL@mauve.mrochek.com> <A6741735F236784CBB00AAD60DCED23F034FE5CB@XCH02DFW.rim.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Message-Id: <20091120151251.B04DCF2403F@odin.smetech.net>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:13:11 -0000

John-Luc:

I am sending this note to help you understand the IETF IPR policies; 
they are fully described in BCP 79 
(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/bcp/bcp79.txt).  I hope this note clarifies 
the responsibilities of RIM employees (and anyone else) who 
participate in IETF.

IETF participants engage as individuals, not as representatives of 
their employers (See Section B.1 of RFC 4677; 
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4677.txt).  The obligation to follow the 
IPR policies in BCP 79 is an individual one, not a corporate 
one.  Section 6.1of BCP 79 is quite clear; IETF Participants are 
required to disclose IPR which they "reasonably and personally know" 
applies to a Contribution.  The BCP specifically excludes cases in 
which a participant is unaware of IPR held by their employer.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need further clarification.

Russ Housley
IETF Chair


At 06:46 PM 11/19/2009, John-Luc Bakker wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>With regard to the recent discussion regarding RIM's recent IPR
>disclosures, I understand the community's concerns regarding the
>timeliness of the disclosure.  As employees of companies we are bound by
>confidentiality obligations and, in addition, cannot always control our
>company's internal processes.  The community's concerns have been
>brought to the attention of my employer and they are in the process of
>evaluating the concerns.  My company has asked for your patience while
>they take the time to evaluate the concerns and determine if there is an
>appropriate course of action in this matter to alleviate the concerns of
>the community.
>
>Your understanding is appreciated.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>         John-Luc