ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

[Asrg] ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam patents: Partial list)

2003-06-13 05:13:31

We have decided to adopt the following IPR policy for the ASRG. It is based
on the IETF's IPR policy as outlined in RFC 2026.


"By submission of a contribution, each person actually submitting the
   contribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and conditions
   on his own behalf, on behalf of the organization (if any) he
   represents and on behalf of the owners of any propriety rights in the
   contribution..  Where a submission identifies contributors in
   addition to the contributor(s) who provide the actual submission, the
   actual submitter(s) represent that each other named contributor was
   made aware of and agreed to accept the same terms and conditions on
   his own behalf, on behalf of any organization he may represent and
   any known owner of any proprietary rights in the contribution.

The contributor represents that he has disclosed the existence of
      any proprietary or intellectual property rights in the
      contribution that are reasonably and personally known to the
      contributor.  The contributor does not represent that he
      personally knows of all potentially pertinent proprietary and
      intellectual property rights owned or claimed by the organization
      he represents (if any) or third parties."

This means that the person submitting a proposal is responsible for stating
any relevant IPR that he knows about even if he is not the holder of the
rights. This does allow for other members to notify a contributor about
relevant IPR after the initial submission. The contributor should then
disclose this information in revisions of the contribution.


-----Original Message-----
From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 2:42 PM
To: Peter Kay; Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list


At 06:32 AM 6/12/2003 -1000, Peter Kay wrote:

IMHO: as an a holder of a anti-spam patent pending, I think 
its best to 
let IPR holders approach us. Otherwise you put yourself in the 
unenviable position of "authority" on patents. If you just 
say "these 
are the IPR claims that have been submitted to us" that 
makes it clean 
and simple, not to mention easy to maintain.

In some cases this would not be true. Take MailBlocks, for 
example - they 
are claiming patents on all C/R systems. They have not 
approached, and 
since their IP is of very general nature, thus we must 
approach them to 
solicit a submission of IPR claims which is what I have done. 
Otherwise, we 
might be working on a standard only to find out that it is 
patented. As for 
the patents that are covering every nook and cranny of 
anti-spam, I am 
agreeing with you. It would be an impossible task to catalog 
all patents in 
the world.

Therefore, I am suggesting that we should have the following 
policy: 1. Solicit input from IP holders on very broad 
business methods patents 
such as the MailBlocks patents.
2. Request that all members of the group that have IP, submit 
information 
about it.
3. Accept submissions from IPR claimants that are not part of 
the group as 
they send them.

P.S. BTW, Peter, it would probably be prudent that you let us 
know some 
details on your IP. Feel free to use the template 
(http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html).

Yakov

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>