RE: clarification of blanket statement text

["Robert Barr" <[e-mail]>]

> Thus, if a participant states that it is willing to
> license all of its IPR on a RAND basis, the statement
> is not compliant.  
> However, I'm not sure I understand the problem that's
> being identified.

The (many) non-compliant blanket RAND statements posted on the IETF IPR site
should be marked non-compliant or removed. And (sigh) the template may need
to be changed.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Contreras, Jorge
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 5:30 PM
> To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; [e-mail]; George T. 
> Willingmyre; Scott W Brim; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: clarification of blanket statement text
> 
> I've been asked to clarify, so here's my 
> interpretation of the rules (sorry for repeating
> what's been said by others in slightly different
> words):
> 
> Under 6.4.3, a participant can satisfy its disclosure
> obligations by making a "blanket" statement
> that it is willing to license all of its potential
> IPR covering an IETF specification ONLY if 
> 	
> 	(a) the license will be royalty-free, AND
> 
> 	(b) any other terms and conditions of the
> license are disclosed in an IPR disclosure statement.
> 
> No other "blanket" statements of licensing intention
> satisfy the participant's disclosure obligations under 3668.  
> Thus, if a participant states that it is willing to
> license all of its IPR on a RAND basis, the statement
> is not compliant.  
> 
> The participant who wants to grant RAND licenses 
> must comply with the
> specific disclosure rules in 6.4.1 and elsewhere.
> 
> If that was the intention, then the language works
> as written.  If not, then it can be fixed.
> However, I'm not sure I understand the problem that's
> being identified.
> 
> Jorge
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf
> Of Contreras, Jorge
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 6:07 PM
> To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; [e-mail]; George T. Willingmyre;
> Scott W Brim; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: clarification of blanket statement text
> 
> 
> I agree with Robert -- this type of 
> disclosure is not compliant.  This was 
> actually discussed within the IP-WG when
> the rules were being drafted -- it is 
> not just an oversight.  A change may
> be desirable, but it would be more
> than a simple correction of something
> inadvertent.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf
> Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 1:52 PM
> To: [e-mail]; 'George T. Willingmyre'; 'Scott W Brim';
> [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: clarification of blanket statement text
> 
> 
> You're right.
> 
> I think this proves that we were not reading RFC 3668 when we 
> wrote it.
> 
> What do you suggest that we do about it?
> 
> --On fredag, februar 18, 2005 10:45:29 -0800 Robert Barr 
> <[e-mail]> 
> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [e-mail]
> >> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Harald Tveit 
> Alvestrand
> >> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 9:05 AM
> >> To: [e-mail]; 'George T. Willingmyre'; 'Scott W Brim';
> >> [e-mail]
> >> Subject: RE: clarification of blanket statement text
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --On fredag, februar 18, 2005 08:32:33 -0800 Robert Barr
> >> <[e-mail]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Agreed - these companies will have to continue to make 
> specific IPR
> >> >> statements. Making such statements is consistent with the
> >> >> RFC, and provides
> >> >> information to the IETF community - which I think is a Good
> >> >> Thing - but
> >> >> they do not lessen the requirement on the companies 
> that make them.
> >> >>
> >> >>                            Harald
> >> > They should be marked non-compliant, as is done with 
> other types of
> >> > statements. Why is it consistent w RFC?? The excerpt above says
> >> > "requirement not satisfied"
> >>
> >> As I interpret it, they satisfy the formal requirements for a
> >> disclosure,
> >> but do not satisfy the (more strict) requirement for a
> >> disclosure that
> >> allows the filer to not file any more disclosures.
> >>
> >> Scott and Jorge will probably chime in if I got that one wrong.
> >
> >
> > they don't satisfy this formal requirement:
> >
> > 6.4.  What must be in a disclosure?
> >
> > 6.4.1.  .... The disclosure must also list the
> >    specific IETF or RFC Editor Document(s) or activity 
> affected.  If the
> >    IETF Document is an Internet-Draft, it must be 
> referenced by specific
> >    version number. ..
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
> 

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg