RE: clarification of blanket statement text

["Contreras, Jorge" <[e-mail]>]

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