Re: recourse if our rules are violated?

[Todd Glassey <tglassey at earthlink.net>]

If you are going to do this then this also needs to be captured in the BCP's.

Todd


-----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.
>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.
>If the patent becomes known after publication as an RFC, then we can 
>not unpublish the RFC.  We publish the IPR disclosure.  The question 
>is whether, assuming the RFC is standards track, we need to do 
>anything.  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