RE: Normatively referenced specifications

Joel is correct when the IPR is owned by two different entities, such as A & B.  If Company A has declared FRAND under an IEEE Specification with respect to an invention, their competitor Company B cannot magically transform that FRAND Declaration into a royalty free obligation merely by referencing Company A's IEEE Specification into Company B's royalty free IETF submission. 

Of course, the IETF WG can certainly take into account Company A's IEEE FRAND Declaration when deciding how to proceed with respect to Company B's IETF submission--maybe they tell Company B to find a different solution for Company A's portion. 

But Dave may be right when the IPR is owned by one entity--If A owns the IEEE invention and IETF invention, and one is declared under FRAND and the other under defensive suspension, then an argument might be made that the later filed IPR Declaration governs the entire Specification UNLESS A makes clear to the WG that the defensive suspension only applies to the IETF part and FRAND governs the IEEE part-in which case the WG is free to decide how to proceed.

On 12/18/2013 8:36 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Dale, your interpretation is exactly the opposite of what I thought 
> Dave was saying. Referencing a spec normally does not and ought not 
> mean that the referencers IPR rules apply to the referenced 
> specification.  They can't, since in the abstract the referencer has 
> no control over the IPR grants of the referenced document.
>
> And IETF IPR grants apply when implementing IETF RFCs, even when those 
> RFCs are implemented in conjunction with some other specification.  
> The IPR grants don't apply (as I understand it all bets are off) if 
> you modify the spec.
>
> Equally, the IETF can not insist that our IPR rules apply to a spec we 
> reference.

I think this confuses the nature of what our disclosure rules mean. For example, they don't mean that we are affecting some other standards group.  Rather they affect decision-making within the IETF.

So, absent a clear consensus from legal experts who are familiar with the IETF's IPR rules, I disagree with Joel's assessment.

As I just posted on rtcweb:

> Normative language in a specification defines the syntax and
> semantics of the thing being specified.
>
> It does not make much sense to handle IPR differently for normative
> text that includes details by reference (citation) rather than by
> inline explication.  In terms of the syntax and semantics, the
> specification is an integrated whole.
>
> If there is an legal distinction between inline normative reference,
> versus citation-based inclusion, which is relevant to the
> interpretation of IETF IPR rules, then some lawyers should provide
> the community with expert opinions on the matter.
>
> Absent a clear and compelling presentation from legal experts, common
> sense needs to prevail in the IETF's interpretation of its rules.
>
> Our rule is quite simple:  participation obligates disclosure.

Here's a simple example:

   Assume I own a patent on a component technology that has been 
published somewhere other than the IETF.  The organization publishing 
that specification did not require me to divulge my intellectual 
property claims.

   I now participate in an important IETF effort that considers 
including the component technology, by citing it normatively.  I of 
course, work vigorously to get the IETF to adopt the technology, but no 
one know that I stand to make serious money if the technology is included.

Given the intent behind the IETF's IPR rules, it makes no sense to allow 
me to participate without divulging my IPR interest in the topic.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg