Re: Generic IPR Disclosures

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