Dean -
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Anderson" <dean(_at_)av8(_dot_)com>
To: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <wbeebee(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
Cc: "IETF Discussion" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 10:28 PM
Subject: RE: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
Speaking as president of the LPF; not a lawyer but a knowledgeable
layman.
I think you are correct that the patent issue is a red herring.
No its not.
The
patentee has the _right_ (not the obligation) to keep patent application
contents secret.
Sure but not when they submit that IP to others to get their 'contributed
work product' added into that IP.
So in response to your commentary, "No Dean they do not because that would
constitute an act of fraud by the party Submaringing the Patent in that they
are 'extorting through an apparent agreement as to joint ownership of the
IP' to that newly developed IP. But further since the patent filing itself
is now public there is no concern for public disclosure.
Failure to keep the secret merely causes them to lose
the _right_ to trade secret status.
Yes but the public disclosure of an IP issue starts certain clocks running
and this is a the real issue. What that means is that the IETF cannot
process anything with Trade-Secret Status.
They might want that status in the
event the patent application is rejected.
But that wouldnt have anything to do with the issue of whether the failure
to disclose IP ownership defrauds the other participants in an IP effort of
their rights to the derivative's and fruit of their own labor.
They lose the trade secret
right if the patent is granted, when the patent application is published
18 months after filing, or if they disclose the information publicly, or
if someone _independently_ rediscovers the secret. Obviously, if they
are trying to standardize the patent, they can't have trade-secret
status anyway: the "secret" is publicly disclosed in the draft text.
So the issue of disclosure is moot.
I have no opinion on whether blue sheet changes are a good idea or a bad
idea for other reasons. Generally, though, my experience and view is
that truth and disclosure is always a good thing for the public
interest.
--Dean
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote:
Regarding the legal issues - if the sessions are broadcast over the
Internet, and freely downloadable (w/o specifying or tracking who was
downloading them), how can you be certain that someone was NOT aware
of certain IPR? Also, if someone was in the room, how can you be
certain they WERE aware of certain IPR? The only thing that the IETF
can say is that every contribution to the IETF is considered to be
publically disclosed, and this is indeed what the Note Well says.
It seems to me that the IPR concerns are a red herring.
- Wes
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Eric Burger
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 8:07 PM
To: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal
Two purposes for Blue Sheets:
1. Redundant data entry: Quite often, the name is illegible, while the
e-mail is legible. We don't care about the e-mail address, what we
really care about is who was there. IMHO, this is the important use for
capturing the e-mail address.
2. Legal issues: When the inevitable patent dispute happens, we WILL get
served to report who was in the room when a particular subject was
discussed. Other standards bodies have had this problem, if we haven't
had it, it means our time is near :-(
On 4/3/08 4:22 PM, "Mark Andrews" <Mark_Andrews(_at_)isc(_dot_)org> wrote:
All,
We are considering changing the meeting Blue Sheet by eliminating the
need to enter an email address to avoid spam concerns.
Is there any good reason to retain that info bit?
Ray
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
It's is the only unique token on the blue sheets. This
assumes no shared email accounts which is a pretty reasonable
assumption in this case.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET:
Mark_Andrews(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated
entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf