Re: Late IPR disclosures

[Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

One option would be to delay the advancement of the document for a while and advise the individual in question that it may be in his or her best interest to work with the company hierarchy towards licensing terms that are more easily to stomach than the RAND disclosure that we have received.  One argument that could be made is that a late disclosure (and, after a very brief look at the situation, it appears to me that the disclosure is indeed late!) greatly limits the licensing opportunity.    

If that course were chosen, I would recommend doing so quietly, so that neither the individuals in question nor the IP department in question lose too much face.  I know of one case where that has worked before.  If any of the stakeholder want my help in this, please let me know in private.

Stephan

On 6/25/22, 19:19, "Ipr-wg on behalf of Christian Huitema" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:


    On 6/25/2022 3:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
    > My question is whether there should be a discussion in 6man whether 
    > this affects the rough consensus to proceed with the document. I have 
    > no particular opinion on that, but it seems to me that a late IPR 
    > disclosure should be treated just like a late substantive change.

    +1. Deliberately late disclosure is bad behavior, and there has to be an 
    associated cost.

    I would also be tempted to request an appendix to the draft, detailing 
    the disclosure process,  explaining when the allegedly impacted text was 
    first added in a draft and reviewed by the WG, etc.

    -- Christian Huitema

    >
    > Regards
    >    Brian Carpenter
    >
    > On 26-Jun-22 10:55, Erik Kline wrote:
    >> There are IPR claims on the two IPPM drafts referred to in the 
    >> handling of this option.  I have not read any of the associated IPR 
    >> patent filings themselves (IANAL).
    >>
    >> I read this situation to mean that the treatment of the data in the 
    >> option is likely to be covered by the IPR disclosures on the IPPM 
    >> drafts discussing their use.  Whatever is claimed about use of this 
    >> information in the IPv6 option is either competing with/related to 
    >> the IPPM IPR filings, or someone has attempted to file for IPR on 
    >> "something/anything in an IPv6 option".
    >>
    >> Regardless, as this document is just about putting the IPPM alt-mask 
    >> information into an IPv6 option I don't see that there's much in the 
    >> way of "alternatives" to be considered.  And "alternative" would be 
    >> an entirely different document about and entirely different option 
    >> and (probably) entirely different treatment of the information 
    >> contained in that option.
    >>
    >> But, IANAL
    >>
    >> On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 3:12 PM S Moonesamy <[e-mail] 
    >> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
    >>
    >>     Hi Brian,
    >>     At 02:37 PM 25-06-2022, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
    >>      >You mean https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5320/ 
    >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5320/> ?
    >>
    >>     Yes.
    >>
    >>     It's an odd case (re. Adrian's comment).
    >>
    >>     Regards,
    >>     S. Moonesamy
    >>
    > _______________________________________________
    > Ipr-wg mailing list
    > [e-mail]
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

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