Re: draft-ietf-ipr-trademarks-00.txt

[Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld at sun.com>]

On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 07:57, Simon Josefsson wrote:

> > This will result in delay in the publication if the draft has to
> > be held until the trademark IPR claim appears in the IPR repository.
> 
> Is that unreasonable?

in the case I'm concerned with, yes.

> To me, it seems that time would be well spent, to get a clear IPR
> statement on the trademark permissions.
> 
> If it turns out the conditions under which you can use the trademark
> is discriminatory or abusive, or if the trademark owner refuses to
> publish a statement, I would prefer to know this before a document is
> published.  Then a WG is given an opportunity to revise the document
> so it do not reference the trademark.  If the WG consensus is to use
> trademark with unclear or bad permissions, that would be its
> prerogative.

In the case I'm immediately concerned with, the consensus that you ask for exists already.

The trademark claims were made known long ago through text in I-D's and mail to
the WG; there was, after extended anguished discussion, WG consensus that the
claims did not warrant a name change and would not be a barrier to deployment
or use of multiple implementations.

					- Bill




_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg