IPP> FW: Copyright statements in drafts

IPP> FW: Copyright statements in drafts

IPP> FW: Copyright statements in drafts

Harry Lewis harryl at us.ibm.com
Mon Jul 12 12:42:52 EDT 2004


I'm probably thinking of this too much from a "corporate" perspective, but 
my natural interpretation of "reasonably and personally" would be in the 
context of disclosing IP owned by the corp or org one is associated with. 
Example, I can't possibly be aware of all the IP owned by IBM or even the 
IBM IP portfolio related to web services. It may be argued that if IBM 
claims IP on some print related technology it is REASONABLE that I should 
be aware. If there is IBM IP which authored in some fashion, then I am 
PERSONALLY aware. 

The more liberal interpretation (in this thread, below) would have to read 
something like... because I work in the printing IT industry I should 
spend a lot of time keeping up on IP in the industry and it would be 
reasonable that I should be aware that (company xxx) has IP in a specific 
area. Of course, I MAY choose to do this... but I don't think RFC 3668 can 
hold me to this (or intended to). 

If I become aware of (unpublished) IP by way of someone whispering in my 
ear... this is just downright bad practice. Someone failed to protect 
their corporate (or personal) asset. I think if someone made such a 
blunder it would be very unwise for me to propagate it based on RFC 3668!

If I was strolling through the WEB one day and happened to stumble on 
published IP related to something I or some member team were working on... 
I think it would be totally up to me what to do about it. If I felt that 
legal conflict would result  I would very likely surface the topic for 
further investigation but I don't think I am obliged to do so. This gets 
into the "applicability" determination discussion. Basically, isn't the 
obligation on the IP owner to protect IP? I think the community needs to 
work from both directions to avoid IP conflict, and some behavior can be 
mandated (as it relates to your personal IP or your companies IP)... but 
beyond that we need to rely on basic good practice... not an RFC.
---------------------------------------------- 
Harry Lewis 
IBM STSM
Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
http://www.pwg.org
IBM Printing Systems 
http://www.ibm.com/printers
303-924-5337
---------------------------------------------- 



"McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald at sharplabs.com> 
Sent by: owner-ipp at pwg.org
07/12/2004 09:09 AM

To
"'don at lexmark.com'" <don at lexmark.com>, "McDonald, Ira" 
<imcdonald at sharplabs.com>
cc
"'carl at manros.com'" <carl at manros.com>, "McDonald, Ira" 
<imcdonald at sharplabs.com>, "Ipp at Pwg. Org" <ipp at pwg.org>, owner-ipp at pwg.org
Subject
RE: IPP> FW: Copyright statements in drafts






Hi Don,

Disclosing someone else's patent worries me.

Disclosing that _in the judgment of that someone else_ this
patent has applicability to this spec is legally very dangerous. 
Patent holders are typically very touchy about the timing of 
making such judgments public.

Making document authors certify that they are not aware
of any relevant patent (belonging to other parties) is
_not_ consistent with the IPR policies of W3C or IEEE
(as far as I know).

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald at sharplabs.com

-----Original Message-----
From: don at lexmark.com [mailto:don at lexmark.com]
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 8:09 AM
To: McDonald, Ira
Cc: 'carl at manros.com'; McDonald, Ira; Ipp at Pwg. Org; owner-ipp at pwg.org
Subject: RE: IPP> FW: Copyright statements in drafts



Ira:

Yes you would be required to disclose the patent held by someone else that
you were told about; however, it is not your responsibility to assess
whether the patent is applicable.  Today, virtually all standards
organization's patent policies (IEEE, W3C, ISO, etc.) either encourage or
mandate the submitter to disclose any patents which might be applicable to
the submission whether held by you, your employer or someone else IF you
actually know about it.

 I don't understand the problem.  Why should you worry about disclosing
someone else's patent... it's public information anyway.

**********************************************
 Don Wright                 don at lexmark.com

 Chair,  IEEE SA Standards Board
 Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors
 f.wright at ieee.org / f.wright at computer.org

 Director, Alliances & Standards
 Lexmark International
 740 New Circle Rd
 Lexington, Ky 40550
 859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax)
**********************************************







|---------+---------------------------->
|         |           "McDonald, Ira"  |
|         |           <imcdonald at sharpl|
|         |           abs.com>         |
|         |                            |
|         |           07/11/2004 03:10 |
|         |           PM               |
|         |                            |
|---------+---------------------------->
 
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------|
  |
|
  |       To:       "'don at lexmark.com'" <don at lexmark.com>, "McDonald, Ira"
<imcdonald at sharplabs.com>                      |
  |       cc:       "'carl at manros.com'" <carl at manros.com>, "Ipp at Pwg. Org"
<ipp at pwg.org>, owner-ipp at pwg.org                |
  |       Subject:  RE: IPP> FW: Copyright statements in drafts
|
 
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------|




Hi Don,

My very point: "or someone has told you about it".  The reference
to RFC 3668 has no protection benefits at all.  In law, the
direct text is everything.

If a collaborator on a public standard (from another vendor)
tells me out of courtesy about a probably applicable patent
(only lawyers really know about applicability), then this
I-D boilerplate requires _me_ to disclose _their_ patent.

Not even close to acceptable.

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald at sharplabs.com

-----Original Message-----
From: don at lexmark.com [mailto:don at lexmark.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 2:16 PM
To: McDonald, Ira
Cc: 'carl at manros.com'; Ipp at Pwg. Org; owner-ipp at pwg.org
Subject: RE: IPP> FW: Copyright statements in drafts


It seems to me saying "of which I am aware" and then "in accordance with
RFC 3668"  in the I-D would explicitly qualify awareness to be "reasonably
and personally known to the submitter."

If you don't know about it then it can't be held against you.  How could
you reasonably and personally be aware of a patent held by someone else
unless you spend your days trolling the various countries patent databases
or someone has told you about it?

*******************************************
Don Wright                 don at lexmark.com

Chair,  IEEE SA Standards Board
Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors
f.wright at ieee.org / f.wright at computer.org

Director, Alliances and Standards
Lexmark International
740 New Circle Rd C14/082-3
Lexington, Ky 40550
859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax)
*******************************************







"McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald at sharplabs.com>
Sent by: owner-ipp at pwg.org
07/10/2004 12:57 PM


        To:     "'carl at manros.com'" <carl at manros.com>, "Ipp at Pwg. Org"
<ipp at pwg.org>
        cc:
        Subject:        RE: IPP> FW: Copyright statements in drafts


Hi,

Harald Alvestrand replied to Carl-Uno Manros (see below):

  We do - which is why the phrase "reasonably and personally known to
  the submitter" in RFC 3667 / 3668 is so important.


But "reasonably and personally" is NOT part of the IPR statement
required at the beginning of every submitted I-D (without which
the I-D Editor will no longer publish any I-D).

Here's the relevant verbatim quote from "1id-guidelines.txt":

  All Internet-Drafts must begin with the following intellectual
  property rights (IPR) statement:

  "By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
  patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, or
  will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed,
  in accordance with RFC 3668."


Personally, I'm not writing any more I-Ds.  Because there's not any
limitation in this IPR boilerplate about patents or IPR of _other_
parties that the editor may be or become aware of.

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald at sharplabs.com

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ipp at pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp at pwg.org]On Behalf Of
carl at manros.com
Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 3:22 AM
To: Ipp at Pwg. Org
Subject: IPP> FW: Copyright statements in drafts


All,

Regarding some of the new required text in Internet Drafts.

This has been discussed for a while on the IETF Chairs list.

I raised a similar qustion to the one brougth up by Ira.

See my question and the official answer from the IETF Chair Harald
Alvestrand below.

Carl-Uno

Carl-Uno Manros
700 Carnegie Street #3724
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Tel +1-702-617-9414
Fax +1-702-617-9417
Mob +1-702-525-0727
Email carl at manros.com
Web    www.manros.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald at alvestrand.no]
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 10:02 AM
To: carl at manros.com; wgchairs at ietf.org
Subject: RE: Copyright statements in drafts


--On 3. juni 2004 15:49 -0700 carl at manros.com wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am not sure whether I missed this in the discussion, but I can see
some
> problems with Copyright statements in early drafts. There may well be
> people or organizations which already hold patents or copyrights for
> things that find their way into I-Ds. If they are not actively involved
> in that particular WG, they may not discover any infringements until the
> RFC is in IETF wide Last Call. Hopefully we provide for Copyright
> objections at that stage, even if there has been umpteen earlier I-Ds on
> the subject.

We do - which is why the phrase "reasonably and personally known to the
submitter" in RFC 3667 / 3668 is so important.

                   Harald











-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/ipp/attachments/20040712/0f7de06a/attachment-0001.html


More information about the Ipp mailing list