Re: [alto] IPR Disclosure Carlos Pignataro's Statement about IPR related

I don’t personally know anything about this technology or the patents in 
question. Also, IANAL and I don’t plan to play on this list. However, a couple 
of process or general clarifications may be in order.

First, anybody can (but does not have to) make third party declaration, if he 
or she is aware of IPR that might cover the draft in question. No search is 
necessary to do this, as a person may just be aware of an IPR for some reason.

Second, if you are interested in a particular technology you probably need to 
assess patent declarations in some fashion. The IESG does not validate them in 
any way, nor do we in any organised fashion check them at working groups 
either. But, they may affect individual assessments to “is this the technology 
that I want to standardise in the working group”? Hence Mirja’s email to the 
list and her question if it changes something. Sometimes the answer is that new 
information about IPR causes a change in your assessment. Sometimes it doesn’t 
cause a change. There are also IPR declarations where you know there’s prior 
art. Or IPR declarations where your assessment may be that it does not cover 
the technology in question, despite what the declaration says.

Third, be aware what constitutes a patent actually covering your technology. In 
patents there are for instance usually tons of references to existing practices 
and background. Mere mention of technology in a patent document doesn’t render 
it covered.

Fourth, people who are actual contributors in the working group have a stricter 
requirement to file declarations than others. If a contributor believes an IPR 
that they are personally aware of covers the technology, he or she must make an 
IPR declaration. The lack of an IPR declaration might either mean that the rule 
was not followed, or that the contributor simply does not believe the IPR 
covers the technology.

Jari

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail