Re: ipr-wg was Proposal to cease accepting IPR disclosures by unstructured email

["Bradner, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

fwiw - I do not think the IETF should ever do that - but multiple companies who were sued for 
implementing IETF standards raised the non-conformance to IETF process as part of their defense


Scott

> On Jul 18, 2022, at 5:17 PM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Yes, but... Unless the IETF starts successfully suing people who
> exhibit bad behavior that violates our norms or others start
> suing such people on the grounds that they incurred significant
> costs because they relied on the belief that there were going to
> be no licensing requirements, even action by the courts might be
> limited to, as you have pointed out, ruling a patent
> unenforceable and thereby making any licensing claims go away.
> What the IETF can actually do to enforce whatever rules we make
> (again, short of suing participants which might have really bad
> side effects) is very, very limited.
> 
>   john
> 
> 
> --On Monday, July 18, 2022 16:55 +0000 "Bradner, Scott"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> fully agree - enforcement, if any, is up to the courts
>> 
>> Scott
>> 
>>> On Jul 18, 2022, at 12:37 PM, John C Klensin
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --On Monday, July 18, 2022 13:11 +0000 "Bradner, Scott"
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 18, 2022, at 9:07 AM, Alan Clark
>>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> 
>>>>> IMHO it would be ideal to make participation in IETF
>>>>> conditional upon early disclosure 
>>>> 
>>>> it is if the participant personally knows of the IPR or
>>>> should, because of his or her job, know of the IPR and has
>>>> been for quite a while
>>> 
>>> Scott, yes.  But to split an important hair, that prohibition
>>> depends almost entirely on the honesty and good will of the
>>> would-be participant.  If someone decides to conceal IPR they
>>> know about personally, we normally don't find out until much
>>> later.  To the best of my knowledge, we have never withdrawn a
>>> standard because we found out later that the disclosure rules
>>> were not followed even if we might start an effort to
>>> supercede it with something less encumbered.  We have never
>>> un-published an RFC because of disclosure failures, much less
>>> tried to sue a participant for not complying with the rules
>>> [1].  Even the most severe punishments we have for bad
>>> behavior --  AFAICT, RFC 3683 revocation of posting rights --
>>> may not be sufficient to prevent "participation".  IMO (YMMD)
>>> there are no real penalties under the Code of Conduct and the
>>> scope of the Ombudsteam does not include lying to the IETF
>>> rather than bad acts against individuals.  If someone with
>>> the authority to do so (IESG? Trustees? -- not clear to me
>>> that there is such an entity) decided that someone was evil
>>> for not disclosing as required, it isn't clear that there is
>>> any documented basis for telling them they could not register
>>> for and attend an IETF meeting.
>>> 
>>> So, that requirement depends a great deal on good will,
>>> understanding of the provisions, and good intentions.
>>> Without knowing what Alan by "make ... conditional", if the
>>> late disclosure is deliberate and a deliberate violation of
>>> those rules, the requirement is, AFAICT, fairly toothless.
>>> 
>>> I don't have an opinion as to whether that could be fixed
>>> without risking even more damage to the IETF.
>>> 
>>> best,
>>>  john
>>> 
>>> [1] if one thinks the Note Well and surrounding materials
>>> constitute an actual contract between the participant and the
>>> IETF I presume that would be, in theory, possible.  But IANAL.
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ipr-wg mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
> 
>