IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> FW: Copyright statements in drafts

RE: IPP> FW: Copyright statements in drafts

From: Robert Herriot (bob@herriot.com)
Date: Wed Jul 21 2004 - 05:21:01 EDT

  • Next message: don@lexmark.com: "RE: IPP> FW: Copyright statements in drafts"

    At a recent non-PWG meeting, I listened to a discussion of IP. One part
    of the discussion is perhaps relevant to recent discussions on this email
    group.

    Here is my recollection of it. A person cited an example of a Dell employee
    attending a meeting where the employee checked a box on the attendance
    sheet stating that he/she was not aware of any patents relevant to the
    subject of the meeting. Dell later found that it had a relevant patent,
    but was unable to enforce it because of the innocuous statement by the Dell
    employee.

    So, I wonder if the IETF statement could trigger such a problem for the
    company whose employee makes the required IP claim.

    Bob Herriot

    At Monday 7/12/2004 08:03 PM, Harry Lewis wrote:

    >Doubt I'll have a problem (because I'm not aware of any related IP in this
    >case)... but, of course, need to check with lawyers. What is the context
    >and timeframe of the part that says I will disclose any related IP I
    >BECOME aware of. What.. in 20 years if I become aware I have to disclose?
    >Doesn't seem well enough defined. I would have to assume the statement is
    >limited to the timeframe in which the RFC is being authored, edited,
    >reviewed etc... not AFTER it has been issued.
    >----------------------------------------------
    >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@sharplabs.com>
    >
    >07/12/2004 02:54 PM
    >To
    >Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, don@lexmark.com, "'Hastings, Tom N'"
    ><hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>
    >cc
    >"'carl@manros.com'" <carl@manros.com>, "McDonald, Ira"
    ><imcdonald@sharplabs.com>, "Ipp@Pwg. Org" <ipp@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@sharplabs.com
    >
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Harry Lewis [mailto:harryl@us.ibm.com]
    >Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 12:59 PM
    >To: don@lexmark.com
    >Cc: 'carl@manros.com'; McDonald, Ira; Ipp@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@lexmark.com
    >Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org
    >
    >07/12/2004 09:59 AM
    >To
    >"McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>
    >cc
    >"'carl@manros.com'" <carl@manros.com>, "McDonald, Ira"
    ><imcdonald@sharplabs.com>, "Ipp@Pwg. Org" <ipp@pwg.org>, owner-ipp@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@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@lexmark.com
    >
    >Chair, IEEE SA Standards Board
    >Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors
    >f.wright@ieee.org / f.wright@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@sharpl|
    >| | abs.com> |
    >| | |
    >| | 07/12/2004 11:09 |
    >| | AM |
    >| | |
    >|---------+---------------------------->
    > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > ----------------------------------------------|
    >|
    >|
    >| To: "'don@lexmark.com'" <don@lexmark.com>, "McDonald, Ira"
    ><imcdonald@sharplabs.com> |
    >| cc: "'carl@manros.com'" <carl@manros.com>, "McDonald, Ira"
    ><imcdonald@sharplabs.com>, "Ipp@Pwg. Org" |
    >| <ipp@pwg.org>,
    >owner-ipp@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@sharplabs.com
    >
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: don@lexmark.com [mailto:don@lexmark.com]
    >Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 8:09 AM
    >To: McDonald, Ira
    >Cc: 'carl@manros.com'; McDonald, Ira; Ipp@Pwg. Org; owner-ipp@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@lexmark.com
    >
    >Chair, IEEE SA Standards Board
    >Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors
    >f.wright@ieee.org / f.wright@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@sharpl|
    >| | abs.com> |
    >| | |
    >| | 07/11/2004 03:10 |
    >| | PM |
    >| | |
    >|---------+---------------------------->
    >
    > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    >--------------------------------------------|
    >|
    >|
    >| To: "'don@lexmark.com'" <don@lexmark.com>, "McDonald, Ira"
    ><imcdonald@sharplabs.com> |
    >| cc: "'carl@manros.com'" <carl@manros.com>, "Ipp@Pwg. Org"
    ><ipp@pwg.org>, owner-ipp@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@sharplabs.com
    >
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: don@lexmark.com [mailto:don@lexmark.com]
    >Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 2:16 PM
    >To: McDonald, Ira
    >Cc: 'carl@manros.com'; Ipp@Pwg. Org; owner-ipp@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@lexmark.com
    >
    >Chair, IEEE SA Standards Board
    >Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors
    >f.wright@ieee.org / f.wright@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@sharplabs.com>
    >Sent by: owner-ipp@pwg.org
    >07/10/2004 12:57 PM
    >
    >
    > To: "'carl@manros.com'" <carl@manros.com>, "Ipp@Pwg. Org"
    ><ipp@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@sharplabs.com
    >
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org]On Behalf Of
    >carl@manros.com
    >Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 3:22 AM
    >To: Ipp@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@manros.com
    >Web www.manros.com
    >
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
    >Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 10:02 AM
    >To: carl@manros.com; wgchairs@ietf.org
    >Subject: RE: Copyright statements in drafts
    >
    >
    >--On 3. juni 2004 15:49 -0700 carl@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
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 21 2004 - 05:19:18 EDT