IPP> FW: Copyright statements in drafts

IPP> FW: Copyright statements in drafts

IPP> FW: Copyright statements in drafts

carl at manros.com carl at manros.com
Tue Jul 13 00:18:49 EDT 2004


Ira,

I think you are interpreting a lot more into the text than what is actually
there.

In my view, the only situation in which somebody can actually fault you
according to this text is IF YOUR NAME IS ON AN APPLICABLE PATENT
APPLICATION in your company.

I think we have wasted enough bandwidth on this subject by now. I am
gradually getting the feeling that you are flogging this dead horse because
you don't want to see the editing of the management draft finished by the
end of our deadline by the end of this week.

What would interest me a lot more is how we are progressing with the editing
of of that last document.

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: owner-ipp at pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp at pwg.org]On Behalf Of McDonald,
Ira
  Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 1:54 PM
  To: 'Harry Lewis'; don at lexmark.com; 'Hastings, Tom N'
  Cc: 'carl at manros.com'; McDonald, Ira; Ipp at Pwg. Org
  Subject: RE: IPP> FW: Copyright statements in drafts


  Hi Harry and Tom,

  To take this out of the speculative realm, let's get specific.

  In order to get out the final I-D version of IPP Admin Ops,
  Tom Hastings (Xerox) and Harry Lewis and Carl Kugler
  (both of IBM) are going to have to put their names and
  their companies names to that exact statement (which
  only has the "reasonably" qualification in the referenced
  RFC 3668,but NOT in the actual statement).

  Do you Harry plan to sign as co-editor of the new I-D
  whose first sentence MUST be exactly

     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.

  I will be pleasantly surprised if at least Xerox's lawyers
  don't balk at this text.

  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: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl at us.ibm.com]
  Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 12:59 PM
  To: don at lexmark.com
  Cc: 'carl at manros.com'; McDonald, Ira; Ipp at Pwg. Org
  Subject: RE: IPP> FW: Copyright statements in drafts



  If (as w/g participant) I "have been made aware... of... essential
claims..." then someone in the know must have made me aware. Would seem more
appropriate (and effective) for THEM to disclose, not me.
  ----------------------------------------------
  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
  ----------------------------------------------


        don at lexmark.com
        Sent by: owner-ipp at pwg.org
        07/12/2004 09:59 AM
       To "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








  Ira:

  The IEEE's policy is one of assurance rather than disclosure.  Disclosure
  is informally encouraged.

  The W3C; however, does have a policy mandating disclosure.  It does
  carefully walk this line by stating in clause 6.7:

  "Disclosure of third party patents is only required where the Advisory
  Committee Representative or Working Group participant has been made aware
  that the third party patent holder or applicant has asserted that its
  patent contains Essential Claims, unless such disclosure would breach a
  pre-existing nondisclosure obligation."

  It is important to realize that in RFC3668, from which clause 6.1.3 it
  says:

  "If a person has information about IPR that may Cover IETF Contributions,
  but the participant is not required to disclose because they do not meet
  the criteria in Section 6.6 (e.g., the IPR is owned by some other
company),
  such person is encouraged to notify the IETF by sending an email message
to
  ietf-ipr at ietf.org.  Such a notice should be sent as soon as reasonably
  possible after the person realizes the connection."

  Notice the use of the word "may" in the first sentence.  If you have even
  the faintest idea that a patent might be on material in an I-D you should
  disclose the existence of the patent but I don't read that section to mean
  that you are claiming its applicability.  Also notice that disclosure of
  the IPR of others is encouraged and not required.

  The statement mandated to be included is actually extracted from RFC3667,
  clause 5.1.  Since it states "in accordance with RFC3668" and since
RFC3668
  only encourages the disclosure of IPR belonging to others I'm not sure
what
  the hang up is.  There seems to be enough weasel words here that unless
you
  intentionally obfuscating the patents on your submission you'd be OK
  especially if they are owned by someone else and for whom you are not an
  agent or employee.

  BTW:   I am not a lawyer.

  **********************************************
  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>         |
  |         |                            |
  |         |           07/12/2004 11:09 |
  |         |           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/e07ae336/attachment-0001.html


More information about the Ipp mailing list