At a recent non-PWG meeting, I listened to a discussion of IP. One part
of the discussion is perhaps relevant to recent discussions on this email
group.
Here is my recollection of it. A person cited an example of a Dell employee
attending a meeting where the employee checked a box on the attendance
sheet stating that he/she was not aware of any patents relevant to the
subject of the meeting. Dell later found that it had a relevant patent,
but was unable to enforce it because of the innocuous statement by the Dell
employee.
So, I wonder if the IETF statement could trigger such a problem for the
company whose employee makes the required IP claim.
Bob Herriot
At Monday 7/12/2004 08:03 PM, Harry Lewis wrote:
>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
>----------------------------------------------
>>>"McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald at sharplabs.com>
>>07/12/2004 02:54 PM
>To
>Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM at IBMUS, don at lexmark.com, "'Hastings, Tom N'"
><hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com>
>cc
>"'carl at manros.com'" <carl at manros.com>, "McDonald, Ira"
><imcdonald at sharplabs.com>, "Ipp at Pwg. Org" <ipp at pwg.org>
>Subject
>RE: IPP> FW: Copyright statements in drafts
>>>>>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 at sharplabs.com>>-----Original Message-----
>From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
>Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 12:59 PM
>To: don at lexmark.com>Cc: 'carl at manros.com'; McDonald, Ira; Ipp at 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
>----------------------------------------------
>>don at lexmark.com>Sent by: owner-ipp at pwg.org>>07/12/2004 09:59 AM
>To
>"McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald at sharplabs.com>
>cc
>"'carl at manros.com'" <carl at manros.com>, "McDonald, Ira"
><imcdonald at sharplabs.com>, "Ipp at Pwg. Org" <ipp at pwg.org>, owner-ipp at pwg.org>Subject
>RE: IPP> FW: Copyright statements in drafts
>>>>>>>>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 at 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 at lexmark.com>>Chair, IEEE SA Standards Board
>Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors
>f.wright at ieee.org / f.wright at 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 at sharpl|
>| | abs.com> |
>| | |
>| | 07/12/2004 11:09 |
>| | AM |
>| | |
>|---------+---------------------------->
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------|
>|>|>| To: "'don at lexmark.com'" <don at lexmark.com>, "McDonald, Ira"
><imcdonald at sharplabs.com> |
>| cc: "'carl at manros.com'" <carl at manros.com>, "McDonald, Ira"
><imcdonald at sharplabs.com>, "Ipp at Pwg. Org" |
>| <ipp at pwg.org>,
>owner-ipp at 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 at sharplabs.com>>-----Original Message-----
>From: don at lexmark.com [mailto:don at lexmark.com]
>Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 8:09 AM
>To: McDonald, Ira
>Cc: 'carl at manros.com'; McDonald, Ira; Ipp at Pwg. Org; owner-ipp at 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 at lexmark.com>>Chair, IEEE SA Standards Board
>Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors
>f.wright at ieee.org / f.wright at 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 at sharpl|
>| | abs.com> |
>| | |
>| | 07/11/2004 03:10 |
>| | PM |
>| | |
>|---------+---------------------------->
>> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>--------------------------------------------|
>|>|>| To: "'don at lexmark.com'" <don at lexmark.com>, "McDonald, Ira"
><imcdonald at sharplabs.com> |
>| cc: "'carl at manros.com'" <carl at manros.com>, "Ipp at Pwg. Org"
><ipp at pwg.org>, owner-ipp at 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 at sharplabs.com>>-----Original Message-----
>From: don at lexmark.com [mailto:don at lexmark.com]
>Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 2:16 PM
>To: McDonald, Ira
>Cc: 'carl at manros.com'; Ipp at Pwg. Org; owner-ipp at 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 at lexmark.com>>Chair, IEEE SA Standards Board
>Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors
>f.wright at ieee.org / f.wright at 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 at sharplabs.com>
>Sent by: owner-ipp at pwg.org>07/10/2004 12:57 PM
>>> To: "'carl at manros.com'" <carl at manros.com>, "Ipp at Pwg. Org"
><ipp at 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 at sharplabs.com>>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-ipp at pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp at pwg.org]On Behalf Of
>carl at manros.com>Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 3:22 AM
>To: Ipp at 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 at manros.com>Web www.manros.com
>>-----Original Message-----
>From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald at alvestrand.no]
>Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 10:02 AM
>To: carl at manros.com; wgchairs at ietf.org>Subject: RE: Copyright statements in drafts
>>>--On 3. juni 2004 15:49 -0700 carl at 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/ipp/attachments/20040721/1187d6cf/attachment-0001.html