BCP 79 says:
"Reasonably and personally known": means something an individual
knows personally or, because of the job the individual holds,
would reasonably be expected to know. This wording is used to
indicate that an organization cannot purposely keep an individual
in the dark about patents or patent applications just to avoid the
disclosure requirement. But this requirement should not be
interpreted as requiring the IETF Contributor or participant (or
his or her represented organization, if any) to perform a patent
search to find applicable IPR.
Your suggestion seems to be in direct conflict with BCP 79.
Russ
On May 10, 2012, at 6:55 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
Always looking for automated solutions, perhaps the IETF I-D submissions
process should include a patent database query check using document authors,
document titles, abstract, keywords etc to find possible exact or near
filings made, and if any are found, it can report immediately at the web site
and/or send as part of the I-D submission confirmation message, something
like so:
NOTE: IPR INFORMATION FOUND, PLEASE VERIFY IF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING APPLIES:
o US PATENT 12345 [title/abstract]
o US PATENT 22202 [title/abstract]
o including non-US patents found
The IETF I-D submission code can use a backend HTTP REST query using the
Google Patent Search API.
Oh gosh, testing how this made work with my current I-D work:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-santos-smtpgrey-02
If the IETF I-D submission process did include a HTTP REST query with I-D
extracted keywords such as: SMTP Extension Greylisting:
http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=pts&hl=en&q=SMTP+Extension+Greylisting&num=10
then I-D submission confirmation message would of said:
NOTE: IPR INFORMATION FOUND, PLEASE VERIFY IF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING APPLIES:
o US PATENT 7849142
Managing connections, messages, and directory harvest attacks at a server
And now I need to see if this needs applies or needs to be referenced in my
I-D.
Either way, I think the IETF should consider using backend patent API
searches with the services available. I can see how can probably reduce a
big part of the BCP79 related concerns. Sometimes these IP things are not
always obvious for I-D contributors.
--
Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com
http://hector.wildcatblog.com
jabber: hector(_at_)jabber(_dot_)isdg(_dot_)net
Hector Santos wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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.
+1.
I think the major part of the issue is the growing potential and ease to
violate BCP79 section 6.2.1 in regards to belated patent filings after
contributions are made as your above "Jo Blo" scenario reflects.
With the relaxation of patentability guidelines, software/business methods
and availability of low cost Provisional Patents, it is far easier to fall
trap to violation BCP79 6.2.1
Provisional Patents is the cheapest way to begin the patent process allowing
up to one year to complete the full patent. This is an ideal way to first
test the market which also legally allows the usage of "Patent Pending" in
marketing material. If the I-D gets no interest, then there is little cost
(less than $200) lost to forget about the work. In one year, the
provisional patent expires. There is strategic value not to disclose IP
related information in the I-D perhaps to maximize interest and perhaps this
is a IETF new dilemma the draft should also focus on and address.
For example, in the draft 2.1, the 3rd paragraph talks about "Timeliness"
and specifically states:
The timeliness of disclosure is very important within [BCP79]. No
precise definition of "timeliness" is given in [BCP79] and it is not
the purpose of this document to do so.
However, where provisional patent filings are in play, there is at least 1
year allowance and incentive to not disclose and that could be a problem
depending on the speed and interest of the I-D development. The draft intro
can highlight belated IPR disclosures and section 2.1 first paragraph, for
example, can add:
According to [BCP79], individual IETF participants have a
personal responsibility to disclose or ensure the timely disclosure
of IPR of which they are aware or plan to create .....
So overall, more text emphasizing specifically BC979 section 6.2.1 to help
highlight the awareness for document authors with a goal to lower the
concerns of implementators who are watchful of protocols having current IPR
disclosures and now belated IPR disclosure issues which much easier to occur
today.