Stephan Wenger <stewe(_at_)stewe(_dot_)org> writes:
Hi Simon, all,
Before some "silence means approval" assumption kicks in here, allow me to
voice my concerns again. I continue to believe that changing the current
practice (which allows the removal of disclosures form the IETF database) is
NOT a good thing. Don't get me wrong: I don't believe that the act of
removing a disclosure form a database actually removes any obligations
resulting from promises made---nor does, in my opinion, the update of a
disclosure. I'm not going to repeat my arguments again; I think they are
known.
The problem remains. If patent disclosures are removed, future
participants have less information to make informed decisions on. That
appears to be in conflict with the intentions behind the IETF patent
policies, to make it possible for everyone to make their own informed
decisions.
a. The submitter should have some control over which disclosures should be
shown in an obvious place, and which require some "digging". A simple way
to implement that would be a "visible" flag in the database; when viewing
the database in "basic" mode, only those "visible" flagged disclosures would
be displayed; in expert mode, however, all disclosures would be accessible.
I would prefer a model where the "removal" flag is done as another
disclosure. This allows the company to explain their reasons for asking
for a removal.
Right now, as far as I understand, companies may explain the reasons for
removing a patent disclosure to the IETF Chair (or whomever is
responsible for the IETF patent disclosure web page) in order to
authorize the removal request, but this information is not seen by
anyone else. This appears like a violation of the "we will not evaluate
patent related claims" dogma, and there may be liabilities here.
b. At present, the database is organized into three sectors, "general IPR
statements", "specific IPR statements", and "third party IPR statements".
Along the lines of the discussion on ietf(_at_)ietf, to avoid future
confusion, I
suggest replacing the word "IPR" with "Patents" (or "Patents, Patent
applications, and similar rights" to make the lawyers happy), and add a
fourth category "non-patent IPR". Things like the Jabber trademark
statement https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/324/ would go to the new
category.
I support this. It may require changes to IETF documents around patent
policies to make the terminology consistent though, which could be
challenging.
The sections could be:
Copyright related disclosures
Patent related disclosures
Trademark related disclosures
If there are other disclosures that are relevant, let's add sections for
them instead of using a "IPR" kitchen sink.
c. It has to be understood and documented that the past practice does not
constitute any wrongdoing; neither by the IETF officers and staff, nor by
the rightholders who requested removal of disclosures.
I don't see a reason to do that. There may be liability issues around
making declarations like that, so the IETF should better avoid it.
d. Whatever the outcome of this discussion is, it needs to be documented
beyond mailing list postings.
Agreed.
/Simon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf