ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal

2008-05-01 08:13:00
Sorry, missed this. Inline:

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, TS Glassey wrote:

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.

I'm not following you here.  I can see that someone could conduct the
fraud/extortion as you describe (indeed, someone already has), but I
don't follow why that has any bearing on whether they use blue sheets to
identify attendance at a meeting.  The blue sheet doesn't prove or
disprove a fraud/extortion charge.

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.

Err, what clocks do mean? Seriously, the only clock I can think of is
the patent clock, which starts on the filing date and has nothing to do
with when there was public disclosure, unless the public disclosure is
that someone _else_ previously invented and published the technology.  
The public disclosure that I (self just for example) invented a
technology I'm patenting has no bearing on any clock I can think of.
Though its probably not a good idea to do that before one gets to the
patent office, since under the new rules, someone else could beat you to
the patent office with your own invention. That's not a clock, but a
race to file.  But the second after the filing is made, one can disclose
as widely as the please.  Its only the patent office that will not make
any disclosures for 18 months; The patent office only keeps the secret
to protect the filer's right to a trade secret if the patent is quickly
rejected or withdrawn.

But I agree the IETF cannot process anything with trade secret status. I
just disagree this has anything to do with clocks. Trade secrets never
expire, by the way. The reason the IETF cannot process trade secrets is
that the secret must be disclosed in the draft, and then being
disclosed, it is no longer secret.  The IETF has no NDA and cannot
accept drafts under NDA. Everything submitted to the IETF is publicly
disclosed thereby ending the possibility of trade secret status, unless
perhaps it was improperly submitted to the IETF. (BTW, the possibility
of unauthorized disclosure is yet another reason for the IETF to get
written, signed transfers, as you advocated previously.)

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.

Agreed.  But one can't defraud via the IETF using a trade secret.  Such
misconduct is only possible with an undisclosed patent. My point is,
there is no justification in not disclosing the patent; since anything
proposed to the IETF cannot be a trade secret.

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 




-- 
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal, Dean Anderson <=