Notes from IPR working group meeting (fwd)

[Steve Bellovin <[e-mail]>]

Our thanks to Spencer Dawkins for these notes.

------- Forwarded Message

Subject: Notes from IPR working group meeting
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 21:04:28 -0600
From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Scott Bradner (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>

Intellectual Property Rights WG (ipr)

Monday, November 18 at 0900-1130
=================================

CHAIRS: 	Steve Bellovin <[e-mail]> 
		Rob Austein <[e-mail]>
Notetaker:	Spencer Dawkins <[e-mail]>

AGENDA:

 5 min	Agenda-bashing, administrivia
40 min	Scott Brader,  revised version of "Rights" drafts
30 min	Scott Brim, "Scenarios" draft
60 min	Open mike*
15 min	Where to from here?

Steve and Rob opened with a restatement of the goals of the 
working group - (1) to clarify RFC 2026, fixing omissions like 
trademark rights, and (2) to discuss the level of interest in 
changing current policy. (1) masks (2).

draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-00.txt - Scott Bradner presented 
WDIFF from the individual submissions prepared for Yokohama. 
Highlights included:

- - Requirement to disclose is limited to 
  "reasonably and personally known"

- - Additional copyright statements will not be included in RFCs 
  unless the specification was developed jointly with another 
  standards body. These exceptions will be made case-by-case, by IAB.

- - The full rights "a" boilerplate in 5.3 is required for any document 
  a working group accepts (although I-Ds with the other boilerplates 
  can be discussed).

- - Submitters need to make a statement about the ability of 
  implementers to use any trademarks claimed.

- - MIB copyrights will be indirect pointers to the RFCs that 
  define the MIB and contain the entire copyright applicable. 
  This will also be done with PIBs, for the same reasons.

Larry Masinter asked if process documents need security sections, 
  too. Scott - no obvious way to distinguish between documents 
  that do and don't need one.

___________ - In section 4.8, is a search required for submitters? 
  Scott - search is specifically not required.

___________ - What's "reasonably known"? Jorge Contreras - this 
  is a definition of the court system, from case law.

Larry Masinter - Can "reasonably and personally known" be defined 
  in a positive way? Scott - send text.

Cliffin Newman, ISI - is there a difference between a contributor 
  remaining ignorant and an employer ("sponsor"?) keeping a 
  contributor ignorant? Jorge - doesn't cover the second case, 
  Steve Bellovin - is defined in other draft. Scott - so we 
  should use the same text in both drafts? Yes...

Steve Bellovin - document will be last-called on the mailing list.

draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-00.txt - Scott Bradner presented 
WDIFF from the individual submissions prepared for Yokohama. 
Highlights included:

- - Decision to accept encumbered technology rests with the IETF, 
  not with an individual working group. Document was revved to 
  make this clearer.

Ed Juskavicius - "The IETF" means what? Scott - based on IETF 
  Last Call. Brian Carpenter - "IETF following normal processes".

Christian Huitema - who is a participant in a working group? 
  Scott - you should disclose if you're going to talk at a 
  microphone or submit text.

Elizabeth Rodriguez - "All contributions" isn't "all drafts". 
  Scott - there is a disconnect here - the intent is to include 
  talk and posts to the mailing list, not just drafts.

Chuck Adams - submitters are making statements about IPR of 
  all contributors, not just people who signed the draft - 
  Scott - how do we handle this mechanistically? CC: all 
  contributors? Requiring ACKs from all contributors is 
  too burdensome, the week before I-D cutoff.

Larry Masinter - what happens when someone submits a draft 
  with your name on it, and you don't agree with it? Or your 
  name is carried over during a significant revision? Web 
  submission interface? (Scott's thinly-veiled deprecations 
  deleted from these minutes).

Elizabeth - other standards bodies list participants in the 
  body of the draft - but they have memberships and vote, 
  and we don't. Scott - we used to do this, too many 
  participants to do it now. Embed the mailing list 
  subscribers list probably not meaningful.

- - In section 6.2, IPR disclosures need to be more specific 
  than "anything we contribute we'll license for RAND"

Christian Huitema - precision is good. All existing 
  disclosures are free-form text. Could we have 
  boilerplate for disclosures? Scott - this has been 
  suggested on the mailing list. Larry Masinter - the 
  value of standard language is that it can be well 
  understood. Scott - send text.

Kathy Nichols - how specific is "reasonably specific"? 
  Scott - if you CAN say "patent number N covers section 
  X of document Y, that would be great. You're REQUIRED 
  to say, "I have IPR".

- - In section 6.4, "when disclosure is required" - 
  Christian - "directly or indirectly benefit" is vague. 
  Scott - if you know about IPR at a previous employer, 
  but won't benefit, do you want to be required to disclose 
  it? If your previous employer had you sign a separation 
  NDA, you probably won't be contributing, anyway. Christian 
  - too much wiggle room. Scott - send text.

Brian Carpenter - Should 6.4 say, "when contributing 
  to the draft"? Scott - no, we don't want to limit to 
  document submitters. Signing a blue sheet or joining 
  a mailing list doesn't obligate you. Going to a 
  microphone does.

Larry Masinter - 3rd-party IPR disclosure? Scott - 
  no obligation to do so, although copyright boilerplate 
  encourages disclosure.

Bernard Aboba - spy in the room? Scott - no one is 
  obligated to identify spies. You can sit in the room, 
  you just can't talk. Bernard - How can we get this 
  information? Scott - we can't, without membership and 
  membership agreements. Rohan Mayes - should we make a 
  statement about what's reasonable to notice? 

Larry Masinter - there's a lot of text about "individuals 
  and sponsors". The world is more complicated than that 
  (patent exchanges, relationships between sponsors), 
  and this is where lots of the interesting questions are.

Ross Callon - It's OK to sit quietly in the room and 
  watch people adopt your patented technologies - if 
  there's a detail that DOESN'T touch your packet, can 
  you contribute without disclosing? Scott - contribute 
  to details if you want, but when you get sued, this 
  will likely increase your vulnerability. "Err on the 
  side of disclosure."

- - Section 8 - "failure to provide notice" - don't 
  participate. Scott Brim - needs to be broadened 
  beyond "employer says 'no'".

draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-00.txt - Scott Brim 
  presented the "implementation guide" for the 
  previous drafts. Points of interest included:

- - Goal is to help working groups move forward in the presence 
  of IPR claims

- - Draft is derivative of submission/technology drafts.

- - Royalty-free IPR is desirable, but not "at any cost". 
  Scott Bradner - remember we're talking about KNOWN IPR. 
  UNKNOWN IPR could surface at any time.

- - Claims can be challenged.

- - Licensing disclosures are more important than claims. 
  David Black - "claims" are defined by expensive legal process.

- - It's OK to fight, and it's OK to extrapolate from 
  previous experience.

Scott Brim to Jorge - the working group is an extension 
  of the IETF. Can we say claims are valid? Can we say we 
  expect the holder will not really license RAND?

Melinda Shore - we have very vague disclosures and licensing 
  terms - can we throw a technology out for vagueness? Scott 
  Bradner - having a WG say "we don't think this claim is valid" 
  won't be pretty when we get to court.

Bill Sommerfeld - say, "participants do not feel this claim is an 
  obstacle"? Jorge - talk about relative risks, not absolute 
  value judgments. Christian - this is not what 2026 says. 
  If you have FUD-based DOS attacks, you have paralysis.

Scott Brim - can we prevent someone from getting up and making 
  statements about the validity of claims? Scott Bradner - 
  probably not, but don't spend much time on it.

Jon Peterson - there's no penalty for asserting IPR when you 
  have none. Jorge - "just say 'we think benefits outweigh risks'".

Scott Brim - recounts "third-party IPR claims" as DOS attack.

Paul Wycliff - licensing trumps IPR claims - what about people 
  who change their minds on RF?

Bernard Aboba - Case studies are abbreviated - should they be 
  in this document? If we moved them, they could be more detailed. 
  This document clarifies the documents that clarify 2026 - 
  isn't this IKE all over again? Should we move the 
  clarifications into the other drafts?

Steve Ganna - there are cases where IPR is judged easily (RSA as 
  example). Jorge - consequences to non-disclosing IPR owners is 
  severe. Scott Bradner - we've assumed that working groups should 
  consider IPR issues (of whatever ilk) from the beginning - this 
  is different from other standards bodies.

George Michelson - you're in advance of the body of IETF plenary 
  sessions. You need to carry the membership with you. 
  Motivations differ according to importance and context, and 
  this document doesn't capture this. Scott Brim - you're right.

Harald Alvestrand - document is written in a style that sends 
  readers to the mailing list archives for details. Is this 
  necessary? Can we name names? Jorge - mailing list archives 
  are public and could be republished. David Black - "it depends". 
  The source is the mailing list, plus other public records, plus 
  other less-public records, plus conversations, plus ... 
  Jorge - don't publish private statements.

IPS Case Study - Elizabeth Rodriguez

- - IPS working group is making decisions today based on IPR 
  concerns about claims that might or might not exist. 

- - Should we add a "call for patents" as part of Note Well? 
  Steve Bellovin, the individual - I disclosed knowledge I had, 
  but wasn't required to disclose under 2026. Brian Carpenter - 
  this would be a good thing, but could we simply reference 
  the 2026 obligation to disclose? Scott Bradner - we do this 
  with the existing boilerplate. Adding it to Note Well isn't 
  a problem.

Chuck Powers - is the obligation to disclose to any working 
  group anywhere, if you put it in Note Well? Scott 
  Bradner - no, this isn't required.

- - What about problems with extremely vague or general 
  disclosures, which we have today? Jorge - not a lot 
  we can do about this - no membership. Companies that 
  don't disclose have the biggest risk. Larry Masinter 
  - the most precise statement on this is still 
  hopelessly vague. David Black - but we have these 
  problems today. Elizabeth - and Lucent bailed on their 
  blanket disclosure statement immediately anyway. We 
  just couldn't evaluate these vague claims and punted 
  on SRP, even though the working group preferred it.

Jon Peterson - What can we really do here? Jorge - 
  there is a complaint process. Steve Bellovin - 
  but it doesn't cover this. We don't have a process 
  for this.

Melinda Shore - can we get rid of "we have patents, 
  we can't tell you about them, we'll license based 
  on them, but we can't tell you the terms, but they'll 
  be fair"?

OPEN MIKE SESSION - Should we request a recharter 
  to change our IPR policy?

Bruce Perens - talked about the risk of the existing 
  policy for open software community. We need to limit 
  ourselves for RF with sanctions for submarines. We 
  need to raise the bar above "two interoperating 
  implementations at Draft Standard" as the standard 
  for RAND. Many working groups are following an informal 
  RF policy today, no matter what 2026 allows.

Larry Masinter - one person's clarification is another 
  person's substantive change. Defining the exercise of 
  licensing is a change. Clarifying our process is a 
  policy change.

Scott Bradner - we've had one appeal of the multiple-
  implementation rule so far. Licensing could be 
  included in implementation reports, but this doesn't 
  help if we don't agree on "needed licenses". 

James Kempf - needs to accommodate non-US IPR policies.

Steve Hanna - Section 10 of Technology draft assumes 
  the working group will prefer RF - this should be an 
  explicit "should". Scott Bradner - we discussed this 
  in Poisson, at 2026 time. We need more flexibility 
  than just rules. Do we want to refocus the IETF on RF?

Paul Gleichauf - we should recharter. Licensing and 
  engineering aren't decoupled.

Chuck Power - we should not recharter. We've discussed 
  this for years. Disclosure is the hardest part. We 
  don't need to slay other dragons. Wait two years 
  before we follow W3C. Ed Juskavicius - agree. We've 
  had 55 IETF meetings so far. The sky is not falling.

Scott Brim - don't recharter until we finish clarifying. 
  Do requirements, then specifications. 

Brian Carpenter - no justification to recharter. 
  Life is compromise.

Joel Halpern - don't change our approach at this time. 
  Let W3C test before we adopt.

Bernard Aboba - Disclosure is the hard part. We haven't 
  slain that dragon yet either.

Igor - against.

Ross Callon - IETF or ISOC could probably do SOMETHING to 
  help - we hold lots of prior art in our archives, but 
  there's no central place to keep track of this. 
  Could we have a clearinghouse? Andrew Bender - formal 
  notification of prior art? Scott Bradner - Expired I-Ds 
  are retrievable to help with prior art assertions, 
  but this isn't too helpful (you have to know what to ask for).

CLOSING ROOM CONSENSUS - we hummed, on balance, against 
  rechartering at this time.  Another hum when done with 2026
  clarification.
  
  We'll discuss this on the IPR mailing list.


------- End of Forwarded Message



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