Re: [irsg] Next steps when IPR has been disclosed for a specification

[John Mattsson <[e-mail]>]

David Schinazi wrote:
>We've published many RFCs with IPR disclosures, it's not a problem at all, as >long as people know about the disclosure.

Yes, IPR claims (and in particular claims early in the process) are much better than companies having IPR and not filing claims.

Carsten Bormann wrote:
>Please note that one weird aspect of the patent law that governs
>several of the jurisdictions under which members of the WG operate is
>that plausibly having knowledge about a patent claim can create
>additional liability

You could reformulate it as not having knowledge about a patent claim can lead to
less liability. I don't find that weird.

Carsten Bormann wrote:
>We therefore generally DO NOT discuss details of patent claims on WG
>mailing lists.

Additional reasons to not discuss details of patent claims is that such
discussion typically is very helpful to the patent holder and that
companies collaborating in chosing a solution based on IPR and not technical
merits get you into anti-trust problem.

Carsten Bormann wrote:
>there are usually copright claims or similar droit
>d'auteur/Urheberrecht on the text of a draft).

There are, but worth noting that all IETF participant have the right to copy, publish, display, translate and distribute all IETF contributions, and (unless certain legends are included) to modify and make derivative works of them, within the IETF standards process.

John

From: David Schinazi <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, 8 January 2025 at 02:16
To: Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [irsg] Next steps when IPR has been disclosed for a specification
We've published many RFCs with IPR disclosures, it's not a problem at all, as long as people know about the disclosure. If this disclosure happened after WGLC, I would run another tightly scoped WGLC with the question "does this IPR disclosure impact your support for publication of this document?" - if no one objects, then you're fine to proceed. But in a worst case scenario the WG could decide to change the draft to work around the patent. It's for each WG participant to consult with their own legal counsel as to whether this patent is a problem for them or not.

David


On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 12:51 PM Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
On 2025-01-07, at 17:41, Michael Jones <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> What are the next steps when IPR has been disclosed about a draft in response to the shepherd’s IPR inquiry?  I’ve never been down that branch of the process before.

We just had an IPR disclosure pop up in another WG, but earlier in the process.

You might want to read what a fellow chair told the WG.
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/-8jgb0jpEOpPjfJyfkIcVcpx5F0>

(IANAL, and I’m sure I have only started the usual cacophony of all the other arm-chair lawyers…)

The important thing here is that the WG has to decide that the document has consensus in the presence of the IPR disclosure.
If you did the WGLC without the WG having knowledge of the IPR disclosure, redo a specific WGLC on this aspect.
(Yes, this hurts me to say.)

The processes specifically give the WG a power here that nobody else has.

Note that this IP disclosure has the interesting status “No License Required for Implementers”, for which I’m not an expert.
It would be useful to have a statement from the owner of the patent claims.

Grüße, Carsten