Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL

On 11/7/2012 1:11 PM, t.p. wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Russ Housley" <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com>
> To: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
> Cc: "IETF" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 5:43 PM
>
> Brian:
>
> Jorge has reviewed this text.  He says that the current text and this
> proposed text are both summaries.  Both say that it is important to read
> the BCP to get all of the details.
>
> <tp>
> Even so, I am surprised that Jorge is ok with this.  The new text talks
> of something which
> "is covered by patents or patent applications"
> whereas the RFC talks of
> 'IPR" or "Intellectual Property Rights": means patent, copyright,
>        utility model, invention registration, database and data rights
>        that may Cover an Implementing Technology, whether such rights
>        arise from a registration or renewal thereof, or an application
>        therefore, in each case anywhere in the world'
> and the two are different.
>
> Quite often now I see a chair calling explicitly for IPR disclosures and
> getting a response that the authors know of no patent application, and
> while I have no reason to suspect that anyone is trying to game the
> system, it can only be a matter of time before someone spots this
> loophole and does.  There have been a number of strangely late
> declarations of IPR in the past few years, which have attracted comment,
> but most of which have never seem to be satisfactorily explained which
> makes me think we need to be more rigorous, more formal, more
> challenging, in this matter, not watering down our words.
>
> Tom Petch
>
>   
Tom question for you -  apparently the patent affecting the newly 
proposed NEA standard was filed according to Mssr. Farrel in 2004 - so 
what then is reasonable about the disclosure period?
The issue is simple - the process currently has so much wiggle room in 
it that these types of things happen - so lets eliminate the wiggle room 
completely. This would take new get-tough language on patent disclosure 
and the like as to what happens to an IETF effort when a submarine IP 
event occurs as well.
Todd
>   
>
>
>
>
> Russ
>
>
> On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:25 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> > I don't much like the change in approach. I think it will be too easy
> > to brush off; the current approach has enough substance that people
> > who brush it off put themselves in a very weak position.
> >
> > The old text was written with legal advice. What does counsel say
> > about the new proposal?
> >
> > Regards
> >    Brian Carpenter
> >    Cell phone during IETF85: +1 847 219 0880
> >
> > On 06/11/2012 15:00, IETF Chair wrote:
> > > The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text.  Please
> review and comment.
> > > Russ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > === Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text ===
> > >
> > > Note Well
> > >
> > > This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and
> > > doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in
> > > BCP 79; please read it carefully.
> > >
> > > The brief summary:
> > >   - By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF
> processes.
> > >   - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you
> write,
> > >     say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or
> patent
> > >     applications, you need to disclose that fact.
> > >   - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and
> > >    publicly archived.
> > >
> > > For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or
> > > review  BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the
> > > Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on
> > > Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF).

--
Regards TSG
"Ex-Cruce-Leo"

//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended 
recipient.