attachment-0001

I'm probably thinking of this too much from a "corporate" perspective, but my natural interpretation of "reasonably and personally" would be in the context of disclosing IP owned by the corp or org one is associated with. Example, I can't possibly be aware of all the IP owned by IBM or even the IBM IP portfolio related to web services. It may be argued that if IBM claims IP on some print related technology it is REASONABLE that I should be aware. If there is IBM IP which authored in some fashion, then I am PERSONALLY aware. The more liberal interpretation (in this thread, below) would have to read something like... because I work in the printing IT industry I should spend a lot of time keeping up on IP in the industry and it would be reasonable that I should be aware that (company xxx) has IP in a specific area. Of course, I MAY choose to do this... but I don't think RFC 3668 can hold me to this (or intended to). If I become aware of (unpublished) IP by way of someone whispering in my ear... this is just downright bad practice. Someone failed to protect their corporate (or personal) asset. I think if someone made such a blunder it would be very unwise for me to propagate it based on RFC 3668! If I was strolling through the WEB one day and happened to stumble on published IP related to something I or some member team were working on... I think it would be totally up to me what to do about it. If I felt that legal conflict would result  I would very likely surface the topic for further investigation but I don't think I am obliged to do so. This gets into the "applicability" determination discussion. Basically, isn't the obligation on the IP owner to protect IP? I think the community needs to work from both directions to avoid IP conflict, and some behavior can be mandated (as it relates to your personal IP or your companies IP)... but beyond that we need to rely on basic good practice... not an RFC. ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis IBM STSM Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group http://www.pwg.org IBM Printing Systems http://www.ibm.com/printers 303-924-5337 ---------------------------------------------- <table width=100%> <tr valign=top> <td width=40%>"McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com> Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org 07/12/2004 09:09 AM <td width=59%> <table width=100%> <tr> <td> <div align=right>To</div> <td valign=top>"'don@lexmark.com'" <don@lexmark.com>, "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com> <tr> <td> <div align=right>cc</div> <td valign=top>"'carl@manros.com'" <carl@manros.com>, "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>, "Ipp@Pwg. Org" <ipp@pwg.org>, owner-ipp@pwg.org <tr> <td> <div align=right>Subject</div> <td valign=top>RE: IPP> FW: Copyright statements in drafts</table> <table> <tr valign=top> <td> <td></table> </table> <tt>Hi Don, Disclosing someone else's patent worries me. Disclosing that _in the judgment of that someone else_ this patent has applicability to this spec is legally very dangerous.   Patent holders are typically very touchy about the timing of making such judgments public. Making document authors certify that they are not aware of any relevant patent (belonging to other parties) is _not_ consistent with the IPR policies of W3C or IEEE (as far as I know). Cheers, - Ira Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Blue Roof Music / High North Inc PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839 phone: +1-906-494-2434 email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com -----Original Message----- From: don@lexmark.com [mailto:don@lexmark.com] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 8:09 AM To: McDonald, Ira Cc: 'carl@manros.com'; McDonald, Ira; Ipp@Pwg. Org; owner-ipp@pwg.org Subject: RE: IPP> FW: Copyright statements in drafts Ira: Yes you would be required to disclose the patent held by someone else that you were told about; however, it is not your responsibility to assess whether the patent is applicable.  Today, virtually all standards organization's patent policies (IEEE, W3C, ISO, etc.) either encourage or mandate the submitter to disclose any patents which might be applicable to the submission whether held by you, your employer or someone else IF you actually know about it. I don't understand the problem.  Why should you worry about disclosing someone else's patent... it's public information anyway. ********************************************** Don Wright                 don@lexmark.com Chair,  IEEE SA Standards Board Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors f.wright@ieee.org / f.wright@computer.org Director, Alliances & Standards Lexmark International 740 New Circle Rd Lexington, Ky 40550 859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax) ********************************************** |---------+----------------------------> |         |           "McDonald, Ira"  | |         |           <imcdonald@sharpl| |         |           abs.com>         | |         |                            | |         |           07/11/2004 03:10 | |         |           PM               | |         |                            | |---------+----------------------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------|  | |  |       To:       "'don@lexmark.com'" <don@lexmark.com>, "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>                      |  |       cc:       "'carl@manros.com'" <carl@manros.com>, "Ipp@Pwg. Org" <ipp@pwg.org>, owner-ipp@pwg.org                |  |       Subject:  RE: IPP> FW: Copyright statements in drafts | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------| Hi Don, My very point: "or someone has told you about it".  The reference to RFC 3668 has no protection benefits at all.  In law, the direct text is everything. If a collaborator on a public standard (from another vendor) tells me out of courtesy about a probably applicable patent (only lawyers really know about applicability), then this I-D boilerplate requires _me_ to disclose _their_ patent. Not even close to acceptable. Cheers, - Ira Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Blue Roof Music / High North Inc PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839 phone: +1-906-494-2434 email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com -----Original Message----- From: don@lexmark.com [mailto:don@lexmark.com] Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 2:16 PM To: McDonald, Ira Cc: 'carl@manros.com'; Ipp@Pwg. Org; owner-ipp@pwg.org Subject: RE: IPP> FW: Copyright statements in drafts It seems to me saying "of which I am aware" and then "in accordance with RFC 3668"  in the I-D would explicitly qualify awareness to be "reasonably and personally known to the submitter." If you don't know about it then it can't be held against you.  How could you reasonably and personally be aware of a patent held by someone else unless you spend your days trolling the various countries patent databases or someone has told you about it? ******************************************* Don Wright                 don@lexmark.com Chair,  IEEE SA Standards Board Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors f.wright@ieee.org / f.wright@computer.org Director, Alliances and Standards Lexmark International 740 New Circle Rd C14/082-3 Lexington, Ky 40550 859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax) ******************************************* "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com> Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org 07/10/2004 12:57 PM        To:     "'carl@manros.com'" <carl@manros.com>, "Ipp@Pwg. Org" <ipp@pwg.org>        cc:        Subject:        RE: IPP> FW: Copyright statements in drafts Hi, Harald Alvestrand replied to Carl-Uno Manros (see below):  We do - which is why the phrase "reasonably and personally known to  the submitter" in RFC 3667 / 3668 is so important. But "reasonably and personally" is NOT part of the IPR statement required at the beginning of every submitted I-D (without which the I-D Editor will no longer publish any I-D). Here's the relevant verbatim quote from "1id-guidelines.txt":  All Internet-Drafts must begin with the following intellectual  property rights (IPR) statement:  "By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable  patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, or  will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed,  in accordance with RFC 3668." Personally, I'm not writing any more I-Ds.  Because there's not any limitation in this IPR boilerplate about patents or IPR of _other_ parties that the editor may be or become aware of. Cheers, - Ira Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Blue Roof Music / High North Inc PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839 phone: +1-906-494-2434 email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org]On Behalf Of carl@manros.com Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 3:22 AM To: Ipp@Pwg. Org Subject: IPP> FW: Copyright statements in drafts All, Regarding some of the new required text in Internet Drafts. This has been discussed for a while on the IETF Chairs list. I raised a similar qustion to the one brougth up by Ira. See my question and the official answer from the IETF Chair Harald Alvestrand below. Carl-Uno Carl-Uno Manros 700 Carnegie Street #3724 Henderson, NV 89052, USA Tel +1-702-617-9414 Fax +1-702-617-9417 Mob +1-702-525-0727 Email carl@manros.com Web    www.manros.com -----Original Message----- From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no] Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 10:02 AM To: carl@manros.com; wgchairs@ietf.org Subject: RE: Copyright statements in drafts --On 3. juni 2004 15:49 -0700 carl@manros.com wrote: > Hi, > > I am not sure whether I missed this in the discussion, but I can see some > problems with Copyright statements in early drafts. There may well be > people or organizations which already hold patents or copyrights for > things that find their way into I-Ds. If they are not actively involved > in that particular WG, they may not discover any infringements until the > RFC is in IETF wide Last Call. Hopefully we provide for Copyright > objections at that stage, even if there has been umpteen earlier I-Ds on > the subject. We do - which is why the phrase "reasonably and personally known to the submitter" in RFC 3667 / 3668 is so important.                   Harald </tt>