Re: "Field of Use" approach to allowing RFC text modifications

[todd.glassey at att.net]

How so Simon? if the RFC becomes part of the patent application then they are identical... also - the current copyrights dont specifically state whether its ok to make privatized derivatives from them that are not part of the larger IETF portfolio of IP. An equally confusing and easily abstracted into a legal-battle item.

Isnt the point behind all of this to protect the IETF and the downstream users from pain from the original submitters of the IP? Also isnt this also to protect those filers from people 'stealing' their IP?

T.
 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Simon Josefsson <jas at extundo.com>
> todd.glassey at att.net writes:
> 
> > This assumes that no one would want to patent a derivative work of
> > an IETF standard. One of the key flaws in the IETF's Process is that
> > it doesn't mandate how the IP is used in its standards and that
> > opens the possibility that someone could in fact patent IETF
> > derivatives... and not have those fold back into the ITEF.
> 
> While I would be happy to discuss patent licenses, I think we should
> separate these two issues.  I will focus on copying conditions and the
> license we grant to third parties with respect to copyright.  I see
> these two issues as orthogonal.
> 
> Thanks,
> Simon



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