Re: Generic IPR Disclosures

TGLASSEY <tglassey@earthlink.net> Fri, 09 May 2014 15:13 UTC

Return-Path: <tglassey@earthlink.net>
X-Original-To: ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07EEA1A02E6 for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 May 2014 08:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.651
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ihPxsBh0XKCu for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 May 2014 08:13:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55B341A02D5 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 May 2014 08:13:17 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=lgrLLvqnBU9b+kjM53VhxSo7JOg210o3lLInFKgWjTUYTQHOV3nfGEezQ/2Ad+CT; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [67.180.134.155] (helo=[192.168.0.4]) by elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <tglassey@earthlink.net>) id 1WimU3-0001yN-Rz for ipr-wg@ietf.org; Fri, 09 May 2014 11:13:11 -0400
Message-ID: <536CF093.4020804@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 08:13:23 -0700
From: TGLASSEY <tglassey@earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ipr-wg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Generic IPR Disclosures
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140508112635.0b83b2b8@elandnews.com> <F0BF319A-75E9-47BE-8018-27F9C4EAA474@harvard.edu> <6.2.5.6.2.20140508121030.0c166970@resistor.net> <C5D47DCFBE3D7F5F658C600C@JCK-EEE10> <6.2.5.6.2.20140508212826.0bd3f1c0@resistor.net> <E55049B41833A30ADBEEEDC0@JCK-EEE10>
In-Reply-To: <E55049B41833A30ADBEEEDC0@JCK-EEE10>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 01b7a7e171bdf5911aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec795019e913966e20bd51160c19206280e6350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 67.180.134.155
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipr-wg/CXC3P7m2OOzTRtJdJ_fnuyBXyuA
X-BeenThere: ipr-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPR-WG <ipr-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipr-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 15:13:21 -0000

Its perfect its the four of us on this one...

Gentlemen if I may,
Here is the issue - there is this US Sup.Ct. Case called Gellman which 
set very strong standards for the conveyance of IP and made explicit 
requirements therein for patent (and trade secret issues). This was in 
California complicated by the Ninth Circuit filing in a CUTSA complaint 
that all trade secret matters would be addressed as such including 
patent issues.

Why this is important to the IETF is it violates Trade Secret Management 
Practices by its one-way licensing and as such it is the control of 
trade secret inclusions in IETF IP that should happen.

Todd

On 5/9/2014 3:37 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Thursday, 08 May, 2014 22:13 -0700 SM <sm@resistor.net>;
> wrote:
>
>> Hi John,
>> At 19:47 08-05-2014, John C Klensin wrote:
>>> Are you saying anything different from "a third party
>>> disclosure may identify IPR related to a particular
>>> specification but, obviously and logically, cannot make a
>>> binding statement about licensing terms."?
>> No.
> Then, given the "obviously and logically" part, why are we
> having  this discussion?  Isn't it, at most, just and editorial
> suggestion that revisions of the IPR spec make that point
> explicitly?
>
>     john
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4577 / Virus Database: 3931/7462 - Release Date: 05/08/14
>
>

-- 
-------------

Personal Email - Disclaimers Apply