Todd:
IPR disclosures that are required by BCP 79 are automatically posted
on the IETF's public IPR disclosure page (www.ietf.org/ipr). These
disclosures may be viewed by anyone. In addition, under Section 4(A)
of BCP 79, the RFC Editor is required to include in each RFC a notice
of any IPR disclosure pertaining to that RFC made prior to its
publication. Moreover, it is current practice to forward IPR
disclosures that reference a particular IETF Document to the relevant
people. The IETF believes that these procedures provide
sufficient notice of IPR disclosures made within the IETF process.
Under no circumstances does the IETF assume responsibility for
informing implementors of IPR that may be relevant to their products
or services, whether or not they implement IETF protocols or
standards. The relevant IPR owners are free to notify implementors
of relevant IPR as they wish.
Russ
At 11:06 PM 10/27/2008, TS Glassey wrote:
Chair - Because of how the IETF's BCP78 and other IPR constraining
document's mandate a disclosure per I-D, you need to set the
expectation that those WG's WILL see patent claims. And that those
member's MUST contact their sponsor's to formally disclose to their
sponsor's the patent claims.
Then their Sponsor's Legal Staff and not the participant can make an
informed decision as to whether to continue the Participant's participation.
The problem that the IETF's existing process under BCP78 creates is
that withholding of this key data from the Sponsor's legal
department constitutes a serious criminal matter since the
participants formally warrant to the IETF that they have in fact
done this and they warrant that across State Lines through an Email
or other Electronic Transports making that an act (whether
prosecuted or not) of Fraud by Wire one would think.
Perhaps you can get Jorge's opinion on this.
TS Glassey
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf