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

[John Leslie <john at jlc.net>]

Robert Raszuk <robert at raszuk.net> wrote:
> Thomas Narten <narten at us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Robert Raszuk <robert at raszuk.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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 numbers don't support this. Counting just RFCs, there are
substantially more RFCs than disclosures; and there are _far_ more
I-Ds than RFCs.

   (Though the IDR WG _may_ have a different balance...)

>>> 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.

   Alas, this is exactly where it _should_ be discussed. (And I think
you'll find the discussion here more friendly than most of the other
options.)

>> 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. 

   Note particularly Section 7:
] 
] There are cases where individuals are not permitted by their
] employers or by other factors to disclose the existence or substance
] of patent applications or other IPR.  Since disclosure is required
] for anyone submitting documents or participating in IETF discussions,
] a person who does not disclose IPR for this reason, or any other
] reason, must not contribute to or participate in IETF activities with
] respect to technologies that he or she reasonably and personally
] knows to be Covered by IPR which he or she will not disclose.
] Contributing to or participating in IETF discussions about a
] technology without making required IPR disclosures is a violation of
] IETF process.

> RFC3979 date is 2005. For this particular draft we are talking about 
> draft preparation which tool place in 2002/2003.

   Actually, the appropriate language for 2003 gave you even less
wiggle room. RFC3979 allws you:
] 
] The IPR disclosure... must be made as soon as reasonably possible
] after the Contribution is published in an Internet Draft...

which your lawyers will perhaps happily stretch to five years. (I
wouldn't suggest pushing it quite that far in this WG, though.)

   Frankly, I doubt even your lawyers would seriously argue that
Section 7 of RFC3979 didn't apply to your participation after 3979
was published just because an initial I-D was published before then.

   (YMMV, I suppose...)

--
John Leslie <john at jlc.net>