This is good. Are you going to post it somewhere permanent?
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Judge [mailto:paul(_dot_)judge(_at_)ciphertrust(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 5:46 PM
To: 'Yakov Shafranovich'; Peter Kay; 'Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org'
Subject: ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam patents: Partial list)
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