Re: Effective vs intended handling of patent encumbrance in IETF wg and IESG
"todd glassey" <tglassey@earthlink.net> Mon, 11 June 2007 19:36 UTC
Return-path: <ipr-wg-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hxpgm-00046k-56; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:36:32 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hxpgk-00046e-JF for ipr-wg@ietf.org; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:36:30 -0400
Received: from elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.70]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hxpgg-00057s-73 for ipr-wg@ietf.org; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:36:30 -0400
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=UdM20ZH7dF7lQm0XRLvbkc+l2rLjVtUhyOyDHUVzA1ZClqdHT9SrZISr93GOqQOy; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:Cc:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [64.125.79.23] (helo=gw) by elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1HxpgX-0006Dc-Cw; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:36:17 -0400
Message-ID: <000a01c7ac5f$d0a89c10$174f7d40@home.glassey.com>
From: todd glassey <tglassey@earthlink.net>
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, Lucy Lynch <llynch@civil-tongue.net>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <46656415.7090505@connotech.com> <4669003F.3030506@gmail.com><20070608144938.L8246@hiroshima.bogus.com> <3287A5D5BD72107A639F81CA@[192.168.1.119]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:36:30 -0700
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
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
X-ELNK-Trace: 01b7a7e171bdf5911aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec7937d66ab555567765d4e6b8c259e94234350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 64.125.79.23
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 5011df3e2a27abcc044eaa15befcaa87
Cc: Thierry Moreau <thierry.moreau@connotech.com>, ipr-wg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Effective vs intended handling of patent encumbrance in IETF wg and IESG
X-BeenThere: ipr-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPR-WG <ipr-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipr-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ipr-wg-bounces@ietf.org
Harald... (and Lucy and Brian... ) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no> To: "Lucy Lynch" <llynch@civil-tongue.net>; "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Cc: "Thierry Moreau" <thierry.moreau@connotech.com>; <ipr-wg@ietf.org> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 4:14 PM Subject: Re: Effective vs intended handling of patent encumbrance in IETF wg and IESG >I must admit I'm lost here. Yeah - I am betting on that one too! Have you actually EVER read the US Patent filing guidelines or timeframe requirements? > > All the dates I can find are: > > - November 20, 2006: draft-ietf-dnsext-rollover-requirements-04 published > - February 26, 2007: draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming published > - March 19, 2007: DNS resolver priming discussed in Prague @DNSOP > - April 19, 2007: Patent request filed in Canada > - April 20, 2007: draft-moreau-srvloc-dnssec-priming-00 is published > - May 9, 2007: draft-moreau-srvloc-dnssec-priming-01 is published > - May 10, 2007: Thierry Moreau informally discloses existence of IPR > - June 5, 2007: Thierry Moreau formally discloses existence of patent > applciation > > Unless time travel is involved, I cannot see any way the current existence > of the patent application filed in April 2007 can have influenced the > draft published in November 2006. Simple - the filing date of the IETF Draft doesnt mean anything to a tree unless its more than one year prior to the Patent App filing. And then there may be issues if there was a revival effort on that time-expired IP's... So the filing date of the patent app can be as much as 1 (one) calendar year from the date of the first public disclosure... so its neither impossible of out of the question. > > What have I failed to understand? Err... how about basic IP Law? > > Harald > > --On 8. juni 2007 14:52 -0700 Lucy Lynch <llynch@civil-tongue.net> wrote: > >> On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> >>> On 2007-06-05 15:24, Thierry Moreau wrote: >>>> For your information: >>>> >>>> In draft-ietf-dnsext-rollover-requirements, an IETF wg effectively made >>>> an a-priori decision to avoid the consideration of an IPR encumbered >>>> alternative; the problem area being DNSSEC trust anchor key management. >>>> I spare you the details of how the wg came to this decision, and how >>>> it relates to the a-priori rejected alternative. >>>> >>>> Now that the IESG accepted the above draft for publication as an RFC, >>>> it becomes a procedural precedent for attempts to expeditiously >>>> restrict IETF activities to IPR unencumbered alternatives. >>> >>> Our rules have allowed WGs to choose to favor unencumbered solutions >>> for many years. You'd have to be much more specific about what >>> you mean by 'a priori' to explain why you think this is a precedent. >> >> a bit of catch up for those who aren't following DNSSEC >> >> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05465.html >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=856 >> http://www.connotech.com/optin_for_dnssec.pdf >> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05527.html >> >>> Brian >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ipr-wg mailing list >>> Ipr-wg@ietf.org >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ipr-wg mailing list >> Ipr-wg@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ipr-wg mailing list > Ipr-wg@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg _______________________________________________ Ipr-wg mailing list Ipr-wg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
- Effective vs intended handling of patent encumbra… Thierry Moreau
- Re: Effective vs intended handling of patent encu… Scott W Brim
- Re: Effective vs intended handling of patent encu… todd glassey
- Re: Effective vs intended handling of patent encu… Brian E Carpenter
- Patent policy and this mailing list (Re: Effectiv… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Effective vs intended handling of patent encu… Lucy Lynch
- Re: Effective vs intended handling of patent encu… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: Effective vs intended handling of patent encu… todd glassey
- Re: Effective vs intended handling of patent encu… Thierry Moreau