RE: clarification of blanket statement text

["Lawrence Rosen" <[e-mail]>]

> ... Can we have a discussion of this at
> the IPR WG meeting in Minneapolis?  

I've seen this suggestion in several recent emails. Some of us will not be
in attendance in Minneapolis. Of course, anyone can discuss anything they
want to anywhere. But I hope that important issues will be discussed
publicly in this online forum rather than privately among the few who will
be in Minneapolis. More specifically, I hope that there will be no attempt
to vote there on anything important without full discussion before-hand on
this list. Is that the way it works in IETF?

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, technology law offices (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242  ●  fax: [phone]
Author of “Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom 
               and Intellectual Property Law” (Prentice Hall 2004)
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of George T. Willingmyre
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 10:50 AM
> To: Powers Chuck-RXCP20; [e-mail]; Contreras, Jorge; Harald Tveit
> Alvestrand; Scott W Brim; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: clarification of blanket statement text
> 
> I have posted previously  a concern that the IP disclosure  template at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr.cgi  has elements beyond the
> mandatory requirements  from the IETF policy/procedure at
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3668.txt?number=3668  and from    the  Template
> for IETF Patent Disclosures and Licensing Declarations
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3905.txt?number=3905   My concerns would be
> alleviated if those elements that go beyond the procedureal requirments
> were
> somehow labled or idenfified as such.  Can we have a discussion of this at
> the IPR WG meeting in Minneapolis?   Is there a date and time yet set?
> 
> I  dont argue that information requests or offerings that go beyond what
> is
> the minimum required are not indeed sometimes relevant or helpful.  Take
> for
> example the discussin here of a blanket RAND offering.  Such blanket
> statements might be interesting and helpful and even relevant to convey
> the
> "posture" of a company making such a statement.  But such a statement
> would
> seem to me to be not compliant with the IP disclosure requirement  under
> the
> current http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3668.txt?number=3668    So do we wish
> to
> discourage such statements or to prohibit them?  Or merely emphasize to
> those making such statements they are not in accord with the current
> procedural requirements?
> 
> List members may find interesting the case of Symbol V Proxim   where a
> court found that  a blanket offer to license IPR essential to a standard
> substituted for a duty to  disclose specific  IPR during the standards
> setting.  The court found that what is "right and wrong"  greatly depends
> upon the rules of the standards organization .  See more at
> http://www.gtwassociates.com/answers/SYMBOLvPROXIM.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
> GTW Associates
> 1012 Parrs Ridge Drive
> Spencerville, MD 20868
> 301 421 4138 facsimile 301 421 0977
> www.gtwassociates.com
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Powers Chuck-RXCP20" <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>; "Contreras, Jorge"
> <[e-mail]>;
> "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[e-mail]>; "George T. Willingmyre"
> <[e-mail]>; "Scott W Brim" <[e-mail]>; <ipr-
> [e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 12:10 PM
> Subject: RE: clarification of blanket statement text
> 
> 
> > I think the question should be: is there anything in RFC 2026 that
> > prevented blanket RAND statements from being effective? Considering that
> > an awful lot of them were filed with the IETF during the years that RFC
> > 2026 was in force, it is a reasonable assumption that many members
> > believed that doing so was in compliance with the IETF IPR Policy at the
> > time, particularly since RFC 2026 was not particularly detailed on this
> > topic.
> >
> > Just as I don't believe that we can impose changes to the IPR Policy
> > retroactively, neither do I believe we can begin reinterpreting the old
> > policy, based on what we now want to do. If RFC 2026 clearly prohibits
> > the use of blanket RAND statements, then removing the existing
> > statements should be an option. If (as I believe) RFC 2026 is ambiguous
> > on the topic of specific declarations, instead focusing on receiving
> > assurances that licensing would be available if claimed rights existed,
> > then we should not try to go back and rewrite history.
> >
> > IMO, the best approach will be to draw a line at the adoption of RFC
> > 3668, and ensure that declarations from that point conform to the more
> > detailed disclosure requirements outlined in the latter document.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert Barr [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 10:46 AM
> > To: Powers Chuck-RXCP20; 'Contreras, Jorge'; 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand';
> > 'George T. Willingmyre'; 'Scott W Brim'; [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: clarification of blanket statement text
> >
> >
> > Is there/was there  anything in 2026 that allows blanket RAND statements
> > to be effective as a substitute for specific statements about an
> > I-Draft?
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Powers Chuck-RXCP20 [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 7:24 AM
> > > To: [e-mail]; Contreras, Jorge; Harald Tveit
> > > Alvestrand; George T. Willingmyre; Scott W Brim; [e-mail]
> > > Subject: RE: clarification of blanket statement text
> > >
> > > It make no sense to simply "remove" all of the existing blanket
> > > statements on the IETF IPR site, since the vast majority of them were
> > > made under RFC 2026, and were therefore compliant to the disclosure
> > > process when they were made. To simply remove all of the blanket
> > > statements that exist certainly won't remove the obligation to license
> >
> > > the relevant technology, since the disclosures were made in good
> > > faith, according to the rules in place; it will simply introduce
> > > confusion as to what was disclosed when. One can't apply changes to
> > > the disclosure rules retroactively, and then demand compliance.
> > >
> > > Any non-RF blanket statements made after the publication of
> > > 3668 are, of
> > > course, fair game, if it is determined that such a blanket statement
> > > does not meet the terms of 3668.
> > >
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > Chuck
> > >
> > >   -----------
> > >
> > > Chuck Powers, Corporate Standards Office
> > > Motorola, Inc
> > > phone: [phone]
> > > mobile: [phone]
> > > text message: [e-mail]
> > >
> > > [e-mail]
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [e-mail]
> > > [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> > > Of Robert Barr
> > > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 9:18 PM
> > > To: 'Contreras, Jorge'; 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'; 'George T.
> > > Willingmyre'; 'Scott W Brim'; [e-mail]
> > > Subject: RE: clarification of blanket statement text
> > >
> > >
> > > > Thus, if a participant states that it is willing to
> > > > license all of its IPR on a RAND basis, the statement
> > > > is not compliant.
> > > > However, I'm not sure I understand the problem that's
> > > > being identified.
> > >
> > > The (many) non-compliant blanket RAND statements posted on
> > > the IETF IPR
> > > site should be marked non-compliant or removed. And (sigh)
> > > the template
> > > may need to be changed.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > > > Behalf Of Contreras, Jorge
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 5:30 PM
> > > > To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; [e-mail]; George T.
> > > > Willingmyre; Scott W Brim; [e-mail]
> > > > Subject: RE: clarification of blanket statement text
> > > >
> > > > I've been asked to clarify, so here's my
> > > > interpretation of the rules (sorry for repeating
> > > > what's been said by others in slightly different
> > > > words):
> > > >
> > > > Under 6.4.3, a participant can satisfy its disclosure
> > > obligations by
> > > > making a "blanket" statement that it is willing to license
> > > all of its
> > > > potential IPR covering an IETF specification ONLY if
> > > >
> > > > (a) the license will be royalty-free, AND
> > > >
> > > > (b) any other terms and conditions of the
> > > > license are disclosed in an IPR disclosure statement.
> > > >
> > > > No other "blanket" statements of licensing intention satisfy the
> > > > participant's disclosure obligations under 3668. Thus, if a
> > > > participant states that it is willing to license all of its IPR on a
> >
> > > > RAND basis, the statement is not compliant.
> > > >
> > > > The participant who wants to grant RAND licenses
> > > > must comply with the
> > > > specific disclosure rules in 6.4.1 and elsewhere.
> > > >
> > > > If that was the intention, then the language works
> > > > as written.  If not, then it can be fixed.
> > > > However, I'm not sure I understand the problem that's
> > > > being identified.
> > > >
> > > > Jorge
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]On
> > > > Behalf Of Contreras, Jorge
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 6:07 PM
> > > > To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; [e-mail]; George T. Willingmyre;
> > > > Scott W Brim; [e-mail]
> > > > Subject: RE: clarification of blanket statement text
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I agree with Robert -- this type of
> > > > disclosure is not compliant.  This was
> > > > actually discussed within the IP-WG when
> > > > the rules were being drafted -- it is
> > > > not just an oversight.  A change may
> > > > be desirable, but it would be more
> > > > than a simple correction of something
> > > > inadvertent.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]On
> > > > Behalf Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 1:52 PM
> > > > To: [e-mail]; 'George T. Willingmyre'; 'Scott W Brim';
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > Subject: RE: clarification of blanket statement text
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You're right.
> > > >
> > > > I think this proves that we were not reading RFC 3668 when we wrote
> > > > it.
> > > >
> > > > What do you suggest that we do about it?
> > > >
> > > > --On fredag, februar 18, 2005 10:45:29 -0800 Robert Barr
> > > > <[e-mail]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> From: [e-mail]
> > > [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > > > >> Behalf Of Harald Tveit
> > > > Alvestrand
> > > > >> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 9:05 AM
> > > > >> To: [e-mail]; 'George T. Willingmyre'; 'Scott W Brim';
> > > > >> [e-mail]
> > > > >> Subject: RE: clarification of blanket statement text
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --On fredag, februar 18, 2005 08:32:33 -0800 Robert Barr
> > > > >> <[e-mail]>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >> Agreed - these companies will have to continue to make
> > > > specific IPR
> > > > >> >> statements. Making such statements is consistent with
> > > the RFC,
> > > > >> >> and provides information to the IETF community -
> > > which I think
> > > > >> >> is a Good Thing - but
> > > > >> >> they do not lessen the requirement on the companies
> > > > that make them.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>                            Harald
> > > > >> > They should be marked non-compliant, as is done with
> > > > other types of
> > > > >> > statements. Why is it consistent w RFC?? The excerpt
> > > above says
> > > > >> > "requirement not satisfied"
> > > > >>
> > > > >> As I interpret it, they satisfy the formal requirements for a
> > > > >> disclosure, but do not satisfy the (more strict)
> > > requirement for a
> > > > >> disclosure that
> > > > >> allows the filer to not file any more disclosures.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Scott and Jorge will probably chime in if I got that one wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > they don't satisfy this formal requirement:
> > > > >
> > > > > 6.4.  What must be in a disclosure?
> > > > >
> > > > > 6.4.1.  .... The disclosure must also list the
> > > > >    specific IETF or RFC Editor Document(s) or activity
> > > > affected.  If the
> > > > >    IETF Document is an Internet-Draft, it must be
> > > > referenced by specific
> > > > >    version number. ..
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Ipr-wg mailing list
> > > > [e-mail] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Ipr-wg mailing list
> > > > [e-mail] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Ipr-wg mailing list
> > > > [e-mail] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ipr-wg mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
> > >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg


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