Re: Status of a disclosure when technology is removed from a draft?

No William - it doesnt. The issue here is whether the IETF process has 
the potential to be used to create IP Fraud and the answer is of course 
it can.  Any IP licensing process which creates a one-way publication 
and disclosure/use license is an issue if that is true.

The real issue is who pays for that damage.

Todd

On 04/26/2013 01:24 PM, GTW wrote:
> it depends on what the patent holder has stated in the disclosure.  In 
> this case:
>
> "The Patent Holder states that its position with respect to licensing 
> any patent claims contained in the patent(s) or patent application(s) 
> disclosed above that would necessarily be infringed by implementation 
> of the technology required by the relevant IETF specification 
> ("Necessary Patent Claims"), for the purpose of implementing such 
> specification"
>
> If no patent claims would necessarily be infringed then ...
>
> George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
> President GTW Associates
> -----Original Message----- From: tsg
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 3:50 PM
> To: ipr-wg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Status of a disclosure when technology is removed from a 
> draft?
>
> Brian - the IETF published with a permanent and non revokable license to
> use the first IP publication. Now that it has a piece of objectionable
> IPR in it - its too late. The cat is already out of the bag and based on
> the license there is an issue.
>
> todd
>
>
> On 04/26/2013 12:44 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> A case has just occurred of the following sequence:
>>
>> 1. A draft is posted that contains an algorithm;
>> 2. A corresponding IPR disclosure is posted;
>> 3. After WG discussion, the draft is updated with the algorithm removed.
>>
>> What next? The IPR disclosure is still there. Normally, we assume
>> that the disclosure remains relevant to following versions of the
>> draft without being re-posted each time. (In fact, do we even expect
>> a repeat disclosure for the eventual RFC? I don't think so.)
>>
>> Is there a need for a formal rule for this case?
>>
>> And what should the IPR holder do now? If they do nothing, the
>> updated draft might be assumed to be encumbered.
>>
>> (FYI the draft is draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing
>> and the disclosure is https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2060/ .)
>>
>>      Brian
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ipr-wg mailing list
>> Ipr-wg@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>