Re: [Idr] IPR related to the flow-spec I-D

[Thomas Narten <narten at us.ibm.com>]

Robert,

> Since the original draft's publication date June 2003 (well even earlier 
> as I started to discuss this idea with Pedro Marques around beg of 2003 
> if not earlier) I was fully aware about Juniper's authors filing the 
> patent application for this work. There was no mystery of any sort made 
> reg this filing.

Hmm. Why did you not then file a 3rd party IPR disclosure? 

> That was and still is the common industry practice in any vendor for any 
> novel work which is going to be publicly presented. AFAIK you can safely 
> assume that vast majority of IETF drafts have patents filed behind. The 
> fact that some lawyers did not disclosed it on time is regrettable, but 
> should not be a point of any discussion in IDR WG.

The obligation is not on lawyers to disclose, it is on IETF
_participants_ (called "Contributers in RFC 3979). This is absolutely
clear in RFC 3979. 

> As I recommended already before if such disclosures are so important 
> IETF should add a mandatory section of any draft template or mandatory 
> field on the draft submission page to list them or explicitly state 
> "none".

You may want to consult with a lawyer. There is boilerplate text
included in all IDs that says you understand the IETF rules (including
those w.r.t IPR). I.e., submitting an ID with the following text:

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

has real legal implications. Ignorence is no excuse and all that.

Same goes for "NOTE WELL" text that you have to acknowledge on a
regular basis.

> Having the draft publishing and IPR disclosures submission taking
> totally independent paths as it is today is just a clear receipt for
> more cases like this one to happen.

Sorry, I don't buy this. The IETF has had many discussions over many
years about how to ensure that participants know their obligations
w.r.t. IPR. The processes/rules we have adopted are designed to
protect the IETF and _all_ of its participants. The IETF has even
received legal advice on how to construct its rules and to adequately
notify participants of their obligations. IETF participants are
obligated to follow the rules. If they chose not to, they expose
themselves (and their employers) to potential legal risk. For example,
they may find that by not disclosing, they are later unable to enforce
the patents they have obtained.  Consult your own lawyer please if you
disagree. The IETF IPR rules were designed to protect the IETF process
and they were designed with such scenarios as participants acting in
"bad faith" when it comes to disclosing IPR.

Thomas