RE: draft-savola-ipr-lastcall-01.txt

Those two scenarios somewhat defeat the purpose of the 
"new and improved" IPR disclosure
process.  If an IETF participant knows of relevant IPR that his/her company
owns, he/she must disclose it formally.  Likewise, participants who
are aware of relevant third party IPR are encouraged to make a disclosure.
The disclosures can be made on the easy-to-use template that is being
discussed, so it should not be a heavy burden.  However, considering
IPR that is "out there" but not formally disclosed isn't
such a good idea.  If people want to consider it, why not file
a short third party disclosure?

Jorge

-----Original Message-----
From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 9:23 AM
To: Contreras, Jorge
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; ipr-wg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-savola-ipr-lastcall-01.txt

On Fri, 9 May 2003, Contreras, Jorge wrote:
> In an attempt to make the language of this document consistent
> with that of Scott Bradner's Rights in Technology document, I would
> suggest that the term "claim" (which was thought in the Rights
> in Technology discussion to be confusing) be replaced with the term
> "IPR disclosure".  The reason the word "claim" is confusing is because it
> can apply both to an IPR disclosure made within the IETF process AND
> to a claim of a patent -- two very different concepts.

Looking at the document, does "IPR disclosure" include e.g. someone sayng 
"we have IPR on this" or does it only activate when the disclosure has 
been made formally to the repository?

I also want to refer to IPR "claims" which are publically known but not 
yet filed in the repository.

Is the term OK for that?

Thanks.

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg