On 2007-10-01 13:53, Dave Crocker wrote:
Bernard Aboba wrote:
Making an example of a document does not constitute development
of a consistent and comprehensive policy on the handling of late
IPR disclosure.
For example, what happens if IPR disclosure occurs after RFC publication?
This is not an abstract question -- there are cases in which IPR
disclosure has occurred after a document was published as a Proposed
Standard - RFC 3588 is an example.
Short of requiring all contributors to sign something contractual prior
to publication -- and even that would not provide anything close to
perfect protection -- what could a policy do to mitigate against this
kind of threat to the process?
IANAL, but it's my understanding that the prominently displayed Note Well
text already serves this purpose. The real sanction can only be having
a patent struck down by the courts due to intentional failure to
disclose it; all the IETF can do is to make its rules clear enough
for the courts to be able to make such a finding.
Also, our rules are written to apply to contributors personally
and not to require expensive patent searches - in other words, we
accept that patents may be discovered, more or less by chance,
after the standards process is complete. Nothing else is realistic.
I don't see what we need to change. As the current case shows,
we know how to rescind a standards action if appropriate. We
also have the ability under RFC 2026 to demote a standards track
RFC to Historic if appropriate. Since the highest reward the IETF
can offer is standards track status, surely our highest punishment
is removing standards track status?
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf