RE: clarification of blanket statement text

["Robert Barr " <[e-mail]>]

I think the question is whether  a WG or implementers were under the
mistaken impression that a standard was unencumbered when it actually was. I
cant answer that.
Regardless, such statements submitted before 3668 are no longer effective as
a substitute for specific statements relating to an Idraft, so if those
statements remain posted this should be noted. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Powers Chuck-RXCP20 [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 9:10 AM
> To: [e-mail]; Contreras, Jorge; Harald Tveit 
> Alvestrand; George T. Willingmyre; Scott W Brim; [e-mail]
> 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