[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: recourse if our rules are violated?
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel at stevecrocker.com>
>Sent: Apr 9, 2007 4:04 PM
>To: ipr-wg at ietf.org
>Subject: Re: recourse if our rules are violated?
>
>It seems to me that the timing is actually more important than the cases below.
>if a patent that appears to be relevant becomes known before approval
>as an RFC, then clearly the WG should go back and decide, as the
>rules indicate.
The claims of the patent are the key issue, and they will change with any Office Actions done by the PTO and will not be solid until the patent is issued.
>If the patent becomes known after approval, but before publication, I
>would treat it the same as above, and get teh WG to decide if they
>think it matters.
Since the claims of the patent will not be 'solid' until the patent is issued this may not work either.
>If the patent becomes known after publication as an RFC, then we can
>not unpublish the RFC.
Why not? this is one of the key failings in the IP managment framework of the IETF. Because the IETF cannot unpublish things (i.e. terminate any external rights-to-use which are granted) then it is liable for any damages that occur therein. This is really simple liability analysis.
> We publish the IPR disclosure. The question
>is whether, assuming the RFC is standards track, we need to do
>anything.
I agree - and the first thing an IPR filing should do is to trigger a flag to be raised on that effort and also to tell the IETF that there is an IPR response needed before any formal advancement on that effort is done. This is especially critical since the IETF's publication model is a 1-way trip into print.
> It seems to me that this can not be dealt with by a rule,
>or even an ION. The correct response is going to depend upon a lot
>of circumsttances, and the WG may not even exist anymore to be asked.
>
>Note for those who don't live this: determining whether a patent
>applies to the practice described in an RFC is best described as an
>art. And probably as an indefinite art. I have seen patents
>applied, many years after granting, in ways I would never have
>thought possible.
>
>John raised the question of a known bad faith participant. That
>seems a dangerous place to go. Without an actual court ruling, I can
>not see how we could reasonably take action on a supposition of bad
>faith. (That does not mean that folks can not be made aware of what
>happened, and that such may not influence reactions to other
>proposals from that source. But no official sanction seems practical.)
>
>Yours,
>Joel M. Halpern
>
>At 12:49 PM 4/9/2007, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>>The IETF chair, Russ Housley, would like the opinion of the IPR WG on
>>what to do when an IPR disclosure occurs belatedly. There are three
>>cases I can see:
>>
>> (a) Intentional non-disclosure
>>
>> (b) Unintentional non-disclosure (which appears to be the case
>> in the situation currently under discussion on the IETF mailing
>> list)
>>
>> (c) Third-party patents that were not known to the WG or the
>> IETF when the document was adopted.
>>
>>Our focus thus far has been on (a), and our attitude has been "let the
>>government(s) take action" (see, for example, the Rambus case
>>( http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1161606920964 ) and the Dell
>>case ( http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1995/11/dell.htm ). We've traditionally
>>assumed there was nothing we could do about (c), since such patents
>>could appear at any time
>>
>>The questions, then, are these:
>>
>> Should the IETF have a formal policy? Alternatively, should we
>> leave it to the IESG's judgment?
>>
>> If we do have a formal policy, what should it be?
>>
>> Should it be expressed in an RFC or an ION?
>>
>>
>> --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Ipr-wg mailing list
>>Ipr-wg at ietf.org
>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ipr-wg mailing list
>Ipr-wg at ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg