Re: Status of a disclosure when technology is removed from a draft?

"GTW" <gtw@gtwassociates.com> Fri, 26 April 2013 20:24 UTC

Return-Path: <gtw@gtwassociates.com>
X-Original-To: ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3055121F9846 for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.185
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.185 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6ChvYM+Z5efb for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:24:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail6.primary.net (mail6.primary.net [216.87.38.204]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4234D21F99AD for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:24:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pool-71-191-174-95.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([71.191.174.95]:63178 helo=GTWPC) by mail6.primary.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <gtw@gtwassociates.com>) id 1UVpC3-0003tq-SZ; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:24:34 -0500
Message-ID: <D32920B60B724550A46CA156F9619FD5@GTWPC>
From: GTW <gtw@gtwassociates.com>
To: tsg <tglassey@earthlink.net>, ipr-wg@ietf.org
References: <517AD92C.6070400@gmail.com> <517ADA79.8080307@earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <517ADA79.8080307@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Status of a disclosure when technology is removed from a draft?
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:24:27 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="response"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 16.4.3505.912
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V16.4.3505.912
X-ACL-Warn: X-The email account used to send this email was: gtw@gtwassociates.com
X-BeenThere: ipr-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: GTW <gtw@gtwassociates.com>
List-Id: IPR-WG <ipr-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg>
List-Post: <mailto:ipr-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 20:24:40 -0000

it depends on what the patent holder has stated in the disclosure.  In this 
case:

"The Patent Holder states that its position with respect to licensing any 
patent claims contained in the patent(s) or patent application(s) disclosed 
above that would necessarily be infringed by implementation of the 
technology required by the relevant IETF specification ("Necessary Patent 
Claims"), for the purpose of implementing such specification"

If no patent claims would necessarily be infringed then ...

George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
President GTW Associates
-----Original Message----- 
From: tsg
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 3:50 PM
To: ipr-wg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Status of a disclosure when technology is removed from a draft?

Brian - the IETF published with a permanent and non revokable license to
use the first IP publication. Now that it has a piece of objectionable
IPR in it - its too late. The cat is already out of the bag and based on
the license there is an issue.

todd


On 04/26/2013 12:44 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A case has just occurred of the following sequence:
>
> 1. A draft is posted that contains an algorithm;
> 2. A corresponding IPR disclosure is posted;
> 3. After WG discussion, the draft is updated with the algorithm removed.
>
> What next? The IPR disclosure is still there. Normally, we assume
> that the disclosure remains relevant to following versions of the
> draft without being re-posted each time. (In fact, do we even expect
> a repeat disclosure for the eventual RFC? I don't think so.)
>
> Is there a need for a formal rule for this case?
>
> And what should the IPR holder do now? If they do nothing, the
> updated draft might be assumed to be encumbered.
>
> (FYI the draft is draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing
> and the disclosure is https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2060/ .)
>
>      Brian
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>

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