At 06:10 PM 5/27/2003 -0400, David Wheeler wrote:
Hi - I didn't see a clear position on the ASRG main page
(http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html) on software patents.
I believe any useful ASRG result MUST avoid software patents and/or identify
reasons why any patent claims are, almost certainly, invalid.
I believe the ASRG work should be based on this position.
[...]
David,
I am actually working on a draft summarizing the intellectual property
relevant to our group. The IETF has a working group working on general IPR
issues relevant to both IRTF and IETF
(http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipr-charter.html). The following is a
copy of an email I received from the IRTF chair (Vern Paxson):
From: Vern Paxson <vern(_at_)icir(_dot_)org>
> I do not believe the
> IRTF has policies on non-document "communication" (oral, email, phone,
> fax, etc.), but they may be working on them.
Correct, there's no explicit policy, but one is clearly needed. I thinking
it'll boil down to "you must be up front about related IPR if you are
participating in discussions".
Vern
Also, the following is a copy of an email I received from one of the
members of the IPR WG, Scott Brim:
From: Scott W Brim <sbrim(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
On Wed, May 21, 2003 10:59:45PM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich allegedly wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am a member of the Anti Spam Research Group (ASRG) of the IRTF
> (http://www.irtf.org/asrg/). In our discussions we came across various
> patents and other IP matters that are related to technologies used for
> fighting spam. I was considering putting together a document summarizing
> these IP considerations for our working group and I came across your draft
> I would like to solicit advice from you and your working group as to the
> following:
>
> 1. Is an IRTF WG (as opposed to an IETF WG) required to work on IP
> considerations?
The publication process for drafts and RFCs encourages disclosure of IPR
for every document, not just standards-track ones. I do not believe the
IRTF has policies on non-document "communication" (oral, email, phone,
fax, etc.), but they may be working on them. I've CCed Vern Paxson.
> 2. Are there any formal guidelines as to what information should be
> collected regarding potential IP claims?
First, see Section 6 in draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-06.txt, which
tells you what must and should be disclosed.
Second, see the section in my draft on third-party disclosures for some
guidelines on the steps you want to go through. The goal is to keep
third-party disclosures from becoming a denial-of-service attack on the
WG.
> 3. Can IP claims be summarized in a separate document or Internet
Draft, or
> should they be reported directly to IETF/IRTF?
The first thing I would do is collect your information and share it with
the WG chairs. Then you all can decide how to proceed. The
technology-rights draft, above, describes how to submit disclosures when
and if you get to that point.
> 4. Should IP owners be asked for extent and opinion on their IP claims?
Absolutely. It's always better to give them the scope to disclose their
own IPR and licensing terms as they see fit. You may get some friendly
disclosures that way.
.swb
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yakov Shafranovich / <research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com>
SolidMatrix Research, a division of SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One who watches the wind will never sow, and one who keeps his eyes on
the clouds will never reap" (Ecclesiastes 11:4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg