Re: Effective vs intended handling of patent encumbrance in IETF wg and IESG

["todd glassey" <tglassey at earthlink.net>]

Harald... (and Lucy and Brian... )
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald at alvestrand.no>
To: "Lucy Lynch" <llynch at civil-tongue.net>; "Brian E Carpenter" 
<brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
Cc: "Thierry Moreau" <thierry.moreau at connotech.com>; <ipr-wg at ietf.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: Effective vs intended handling of patent encumbrance in IETF wg 
and IESG


> I must admit I'm lost here.

Yeah - I am betting on that one too! Have you actually EVER read the US 
Patent filing guidelines or timeframe requirements?

> All the dates I can find are:
>
> - November 20, 2006: draft-ietf-dnsext-rollover-requirements-04 published
> - February 26, 2007: draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming published
> - March 19, 2007: DNS resolver priming discussed in Prague @DNSOP
> - April 19, 2007: Patent request filed in Canada
> - April 20, 2007: draft-moreau-srvloc-dnssec-priming-00 is published
> - May 9, 2007: draft-moreau-srvloc-dnssec-priming-01 is published
> - May 10, 2007: Thierry Moreau informally discloses existence of IPR
> - June 5, 2007: Thierry Moreau formally discloses existence of patent 
> applciation
>
> Unless time travel is involved, I cannot see any way the current existence 
> of the patent application filed in April 2007 can have influenced the 
> draft published in November 2006.

Simple - the filing date of the IETF Draft doesnt mean anything to a tree 
unless its more than one year prior to the Patent App filing. And then there 
may be issues if there was a revival effort on that time-expired IP's... So 
the filing date of the patent app can be as much as 1 (one) calendar year 
from the date of the first public disclosure...  so its neither impossible 
of out of the question.

> What have I failed to understand?

Err... how about basic IP Law?

>                 Harald
>
> --On 8. juni 2007 14:52 -0700 Lucy Lynch <llynch at civil-tongue.net> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >
> > > On 2007-06-05 15:24, Thierry Moreau wrote:
> > > > For your information:
> > > >
> > > > In draft-ietf-dnsext-rollover-requirements, an IETF wg effectively made
> > > > an  a-priori decision to avoid the consideration of an IPR encumbered
> > > > alternative; the problem area being DNSSEC trust anchor key management.
> > > > I  spare you the details of how the wg came to this decision, and how
> > > > it  relates to the a-priori rejected alternative.
> > > >
> > > > Now that the IESG accepted the above draft for publication as an RFC,
> > > > it  becomes a procedural precedent for attempts to expeditiously
> > > > restrict IETF  activities to IPR unencumbered alternatives.
> > >
> > > Our rules have allowed WGs to choose to favor unencumbered solutions
> > > for many years. You'd have to be much more specific about what
> > > you mean by 'a priori' to explain why you think this is a precedent.
> >
> > a bit of catch up for those who aren't following DNSSEC
> >
> > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05465.html
> >   https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=856
> >   http://www.connotech.com/optin_for_dnssec.pdf
> > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05527.html
> >
> > >      Brian
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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 


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