On 2012-05-10 03:18, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 5/9/12 6:40 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
I don't want participants to think that they can't bring up the issue
of violation without some sort of "burden of proof".
Hmm.
I'm concerned about people bringing baseless accusations, as yet
another way to DOS a WG with IPR. If a person believes that there is a
violation that is worthy of the name, they should probably see to it
that it gets discussed, but I don't see how they make that
determination without having at least some data or report that can be
verified. If someone in my working group brings such an accusation to
me, trust me, the first question I am going to ask is "why do you
believe that". If the answer is "can't you see they have shifty eyes",
it will end there. I'm looking for at minimum that a named party has
evidence to support it.
I completely agree. That's why I asked that we figure out some text that
does both things: Indicate that it's OK to say that you believe someone
crossed the line and explain your reasons for that belief, but not
require that it be a proven fact before you can even broach the subject.
I can see how the current text might be too lax, but I thought Brian's
text was too stringent. Looking for a happy medium.
Fair enough. I can't agree with SM though - as for appeals under RFC 2026,
the person bringing up an issue really has to provide a factual summary,
exactly to avoid witch hunts. It can be very short:
Hi, I noticed that US Patent 12345 was filed in March 2010, and
draft-blo-foobar was posted that June, and Jo Blo was an author
of both. It looks as if they describe the same method, so why
wasn't there an IPR disclosure in 2010? Would the WG Chairs consider
sanctions against Jo Blo appropriate?
Possible text:
Any IETF participant can draw attention to an apparent violation
of the IETF's IPR policy. This can be done by sending email to
the appropriate IETF mailing list, including a short summary of
the known facts and, optionally, a call for sanctions to be
applied.
Brian