ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Retention of blue sheets

2009-07-30 19:10:51
Hi Brian,

One can sit in a WG meeting for years, and never incur a disclosure
obligation under BCP78, correct?  Just sitting there and not
saying/writing/contributing a thing does not trigger a disclosure
obligation.  Same goes for merely being subscribed to a mailing list.  This
is a major difference from the organization where that infamous case law of
Pete's has had its playground.

That said, I'm in favor of keeping the blue sheets based on principles of
record retention.  But their IPR impact, I believe, is rather limited.

Regards,
Stephan


On 7/30/09 4:00 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" 
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

On 2009-07-31 02:25, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 7/30/09 at 3:03 PM +0100, Samuel Weiler wrote:

What harms would come from destroying those old records and/or not
collecting such details in the future?  And how widespread is the
support for destroying them?

Repeating something I just mentioned to Sam in the hallway (and IANAL,
even though I teach some of this stuff to engineers):

There is some case law that says that if you participate (even
passively) in a standards body in which patent disclosure is required,
and you choose not to disclose your patents, you may lose your rights to
assert the patents. Having a blue sheet with someone's name on it may be
sufficient for a court to find that the person can't assert. I think
that makes the blue sheets worth keeping.

I think that we *care* about IPR disclosures and that we *hate* the idea
of people observing IETF activity and concealing relevant patents. So having
a record of WG attendance is important; having a record of mailing list
membership would be the same. We want to make sure that people can't
falsely plead ignorance in case of missing IPR disclosures.

Indeed, it isn't the IETF itself that would end up in court, but our records
can end up in court as evidence that a patent holder did (or did not)
participate in a standards discussion and did (or did not) make an
appropriate IPR disclosure.

That means keeping attendance records for many years - at least for the
lifetime of a hypothetical patent.

I agree with Alissa that having an explicit privacy policy would be a
good idea, but the fact of participation in an open standards process
certainly cannot be considered a private matter. Exactly the opposite,
in fact.

    Brian
_______________________________________________
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>