attachment

Doubt I'll have a problem (because I'm not aware of any related IP in this case)... but, of course, need to check with lawyers. What is the context and timeframe of the part that says I will disclose any related IP I BECOME aware of. What.. in 20 years if I become aware I have to disclose? Doesn't seem well enough defined. I would have to assume the statement is limited to the timeframe in which the RFC is being authored, edited, reviewed etc... not AFTER it has been issued. ---------------------------------------------- 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> 07/12/2004 02:54 PM <td width=59%> <table width=100%> <tr> <td> <div align=right>To</div> <td valign=top>Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, don@lexmark.com, "'Hastings, Tom N'" <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.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> <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> Hi Harry and Tom,   To take this out of the speculative realm, let's get specific.   In order to get out the final I-D version of IPP Admin Ops, Tom Hastings (Xerox) and Harry Lewis and Carl Kugler (both of IBM) are going to have to put their names and their companies names to that exact statement (which only has the "reasonably" qualification in the referenced RFC 3668,but NOT in the actual statement).   Do you Harry plan to sign as co-editor of the new I-D whose first sentence MUST be exactly   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.   I will be pleasantly surprised if at least Xerox's lawyers don't balk at this text.   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: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 12:59 PM To: don@lexmark.com Cc: 'carl@manros.com'; McDonald, Ira; Ipp@Pwg. Org Subject: RE: IPP> FW: Copyright statements in drafts If (as w/g participant) I "have been made aware... of... essential claims..." then someone in the know must have made me aware. Would seem more appropriate (and effective) for THEM to disclose, not me. ---------------------------------------------- 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=16%>don@lexmark.com Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org 07/12/2004 09:59 AM <td width=83%> <table width=100%> <tr> <td width=14%> <div align=right>To</div> <td width=85% valign=top>"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 width=100%> <tr valign=top> <td width=49%> <td width=50%></table> </table> <tt> Ira: The IEEE's policy is one of assurance rather than disclosure.  Disclosure is informally encouraged. The W3C; however, does have a policy mandating disclosure.  It does carefully walk this line by stating in clause 6.7: "Disclosure of third party patents is only required where the Advisory Committee Representative or Working Group participant has been made aware that the third party patent holder or applicant has asserted that its patent contains Essential Claims, unless such disclosure would breach a pre-existing nondisclosure obligation." It is important to realize that in RFC3668, from which clause 6.1.3 it says: "If a person has information about IPR that may Cover IETF Contributions, but the participant is not required to disclose because they do not meet the criteria in Section 6.6 (e.g., the IPR is owned by some other company), such person is encouraged to notify the IETF by sending an email message to ietf-ipr@ietf.org.  Such a notice should be sent as soon as reasonably possible after the person realizes the connection." Notice the use of the word "may" in the first sentence.  If you have even the faintest idea that a patent might be on material in an I-D you should disclose the existence of the patent but I don't read that section to mean that you are claiming its applicability.  Also notice that disclosure of the IPR of others is encouraged and not required. The statement mandated to be included is actually extracted from RFC3667, clause 5.1.  Since it states "in accordance with RFC3668" and since RFC3668 only encourages the disclosure of IPR belonging to others I'm not sure what the hang up is.  There seems to be enough weasel words here that unless you intentionally obfuscating the patents on your submission you'd be OK especially if they are owned by someone else and for whom you are not an agent or employee. BTW:   I am not a lawyer. ********************************************** 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>         | |         |                            | |         |           07/12/2004 11:09 | |         |           AM               | |         |                            | |---------+----------------------------> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |                                                                                                                       | |       To:       "'don@lexmark.com'" <don@lexmark.com>, "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>                      | |       cc:       "'carl@manros.com'" <carl@manros.com>, "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>, "Ipp@Pwg. Org"      | |        <ipp@pwg.org>, owner-ipp@pwg.org                                                                               | |       Subject:  RE: IPP> FW: Copyright statements in drafts                                                           | >-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| 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>