gmane.ietf.ipr

The IPR filing form has a flaw... Patent Assignee's dont alwayscontrol or have licensing authority on them.

tsg — 2013-05-21T20:35:43

  The IPR filing form assumes that the Party the Patent in the filing is 
assigned to also controls the licensing and that is not always true.  
dTo that end - some form of notation or role-specific type statement 
needs to be created for this form as well to meet this specific (and 
more and more common) situation.

Todd Glassey

Re: Status of a disclosure when technology is removed from a draft?

tsg — 2013-04-29T17:40:09

The ONLY way this works is if the previous license to use the earlier 
DRAFT is formally revoked and if not then this is meaningless. If you 
are not formally changing the license to the previous IP by the new 
publication then the limiting power of the new draft to protect the WG 
and its sponsors is vapor... by the way did the sponsor's legal teams 
issue any statement on this? I bet not...

The real issue is whether this august bunch of professionals is able to 
convince the world it never considered these things and plausible 
deniablity applies here too. I personally think you stand a snowball's 
chance in hell but hey... it is what it is.

todd



On 04/26/2013 02:43 PM, Black, David wrote:

Re: Status of a disclosure when technology is removed from a draft?

tsg — 2013-04-29T17:07:24

When the DISCLOSURE in and of itself has an IP Publication License such 
that the IP is published under that license, then any disclosure as you 
put it is in fact a licensing event for IP in that disclosure. So no...

Todd

Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science

2013-04-27T17:47:36

Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science


We are researchers from different parts of the world and conducted a study on  
the world’s biggest bogus computer science conference WORLDCOMP 
( http://sites.google.com/site/worlddump1 ) organized by Prof. Hamid Arabnia 
from University of Georgia, USA.


We submitted a fake paper to WORLDCOMP 2011 and again (the same paper 
with a modified title) to WORLDCOMP 2012. This paper had numerous 
fundamental mistakes. Sample statements from that paper include: 

(1). Binary logic is fuzzy logic and vice versa
(2). Pascal developed fuzzy logic
(3). Object oriented languages do not exhibit any polymorphism or inheritance
(4). TCP and IP are synonyms and are part of OSI model 
(5). Distributed systems deal with only one computer
(6). Laptop is an example for a super computer
(7). Operating system is an example for computer hardware


Also, our paper did not express any conceptual meaning.  However, it 
was accepted both the times without any modifications (and without

RE: Status of a disclosure when technology is removed from a draft?

Black, David — 2013-04-26T21:43:44

I agree w/Brian - an effective thing to do in this particular case would be
to submit a disclosure against the revised version of the draft stating
that changes to the draft have rendered the previous disclosure no longer
applicable.  That combo of two disclosures turning up in an IPR search on
that draft should lead people to the correct conclusion (no longer applicable).

Thanks,
--David

Re: Status of a disclosure when technology is removed from a draft?

Brian E Carpenter — 2013-04-26T21:17:44

I think a bit more is needed, such as

If there is a substantive change to the draft that affects an existing
disclosure, an updated disclosure should be made as soon as reasonably
possible.

     Brian

Re: Status of a disclosure when technology is removed from a draft?

Scott Brim — 2013-04-26T21:12:26

"Claimants should be aware that as drafts evolve, text may be added or
removed, and it is recommended that they keep this in mind when
composing text for disclosures."

Re: Status of a disclosure when technology is removed from a draft?

Brian E Carpenter — 2013-04-26T21:04:54

Certainly, but my question was whether we need either a specific rule
or (more likely) a recommended procedure for the case where the
encumbered technology is removed from a draft.

    Brian

Re: Status of a disclosure when technology is removed from a draft?

tsg — 2013-04-26T21:04:21

No William - it doesnt. The issue here is whether the IETF process has 
the potential to be used to create IP Fraud and the answer is of course 
it can.  Any IP licensing process which creates a one-way publication 
and disclosure/use license is an issue if that is true.

The real issue is who pays for that damage.

Todd


On 04/26/2013 01:24 PM, GTW wrote:

Re: Status of a disclosure when technology is removed from a draft?

Carsten Bormann — 2013-04-26T20:58:38


Resubmit cleaned-up draft under new name.

Grüße, Carsten

Re: Status of a disclosure when technology is removed from a draft?

Scott Brim — 2013-04-26T20:55:40

That should be handled as an education problem (of both claimants and
IETF participants), not a problem with freedom of what to say in
disclosures.

Re: Status of a disclosure when technology is removed from a draft?

Brian E Carpenter — 2013-04-26T20:49:11

George,

On 27/04/2013 08:24, GTW wrote:

Yes, for someone who follows up the details, there is no issue,
but meanwhile there is the chilling effect of a disclosure that
is objectively no longer relevant. We know from experience that
many IETF participants simply recoil in horror when they see a
disclosure, without looking at the details.

    Brian

Re: Status of a disclosure when technology is removed from a draft?

GTW — 2013-04-26T20:24:27

it depends on what the patent holder has stated in the disclosure.  In this 
case:

"The Patent Holder states that its position with respect to licensing any 
patent claims contained in the patent(s) or patent application(s) disclosed 
above that would necessarily be infringed by implementation of the 
technology required by the relevant IETF specification ("Necessary Patent 
Claims"), for the purpose of implementing such specification"

If no patent claims would necessarily be infringed then ...

George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
President GTW Associates
-----Original Message----- 
From: tsg
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 3:50 PM
To: ipr-wg< at >ietf.org
Subject: Re: Status of a disclosure when technology is removed from a draft?

Brian - the IETF published with a permanent and non revokable license to
use the first IP publication. Now that it has a piece of objectionable
IPR in it - its too late. The cat is already out of the bag and based on
the license there is an issue.

todd


On 04/26/2013 12:44 PM, Brian E Carpen

Re: Status of a disclosure when technology is removed from a draft?

tsg — 2013-04-26T19:50:17

Brian - the IETF published with a permanent and non revokable license to 
use the first IP publication. Now that it has a piece of objectionable 
IPR in it - its too late. The cat is already out of the bag and based on 
the license there is an issue.

todd


On 04/26/2013 12:44 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

Status of a disclosure when technology is removed from a draft?

Brian E Carpenter — 2013-04-26T19:44:44

Hi,

A case has just occurred of the following sequence:

1. A draft is posted that contains an algorithm;
2. A corresponding IPR disclosure is posted;
3. After WG discussion, the draft is updated with the algorithm removed.

What next? The IPR disclosure is still there. Normally, we assume
that the disclosure remains relevant to following versions of the
draft without being re-posted each time. (In fact, do we even expect
a repeat disclosure for the eventual RFC? I don't think so.)

Is there a need for a formal rule for this case?

And what should the IPR holder do now? If they do nothing, the
updated draft might be assumed to be encumbered.

(FYI the draft is draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing
and the disclosure is https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2060/ .)

    Brian

Re: 1.k in draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-04: scope of "participation"

tsg — 2013-04-18T12:45:12

Why not just require all parties to register and lose the entire 
potential for this problem. Why does the IETF need anonymity in its IP 
suppliers?

No other organization on earth uses this model and bluntly - none of the 
commercial or otherwise players can participate in that type of behavior 
in the real world so why is it necessary here?

It isnt about tradition - because today's IETF has NOTHING TO DO WITH 
THE IETF's ROOTS, it is a completely different animal and it works on 
leading edge protocols and processes instead of being a place where 
protocols which were already in existence are standardized and 
interoperability ensured between the various versions available to the 
consumer.

So again - why is anonymity necessary?

Todd

Re: 1.k in draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-04: scope of "participation"

Jari Arkko — 2013-04-18T12:03:05


FWIW, I agree with what Thomas says above.

Jari

Q: do we have any IETF Publication Mirror and Mailing List RetentionRequirements.

tsg — 2013-04-15T17:16:22

Folks
In regard to IETF Mailing List Archives and WG operations... what is the 
period of retention? Also is it possible this needs to also apply to the 
document mirrors?

So there are some issues we need to pull out and put on the list of 
things we need to deal with in IETF participation. The issue I want to 
bring up here pertains to RECORD RETENTION and AVAILABILITY POLICY for 
both the submissions and for the WG Mirrors.

Documents and Mailing Lists must be retained for seven years (7 years)
============================================
As to why there are legal tax issues for needing to prove participation 
in the IETF and so since as much as  75% of its participants today (we 
figure it actually may be higher) from the commercial world are using 
tax write-downs under employee benefits to support IETF costing, so the 
ability to prove that participation for the full tax-document retention 
period just became a real issue.

What does this mean for WG's who outsource that? -
============================

Re: 1.k in draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-04: scope of "participation"

tsg — 2013-04-15T15:40:11

Why? - are they not practicing as a fiduciary in some form if they 
represent someone else? If they represent their own IP Interests - and 
they are there harvesting IP for other projects (through their exposure 
if nothing else) then there is a disclosure requirement one would think.

Again this all boils down to the idea that there can be no lurkers - 
everything and everyone must be out in the public for all to see - total 
transparency.

Todd


 inute presentation slot?

RE: 1.k in draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-04: scope of "participation"

Michael Cameron — 2013-04-15T14:46:41



+2


I believe that obligation to disclose needs to stay scoped to the actual participation. Otherwise, folk may find themselves obligated to disclose in areas where they really are not paying attention at all and will not realistically know they need to disclose. This appears to place new burdens on a participatant.

For example, participating in one discussion in a meeting could obligate an individual to disclose in a bunch of areas where they practically have no knowledge (they may have knowledge of IPR, but not know it covers some document they haven't even read).  I do not think it is advisable or practical to place obligations on individuals that are not "making a contribution", per the traditional definition.

Consider WGs that have a relatively large scope, where an individual only has interest in one or two documents/technologies. The individual does not care about (or follow) everything the WG is involved in (or happens to discuss during a specific meeting). Look at a WG like DHCP, where one fin

Re: 1.k in draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-04: scope of "participation"

Thomas Narten — 2013-04-15T14:08:21

I was not able to attend the BOF, so was not able to participate
there.

Barry Leiba <barryleiba< at >computer.org> writes:



+1.


I believe that obligation to disclose needs to stay scoped to the
actual participation. Otherwise, folk may find themselves obligated to
disclose in areas where they really are not paying attention at all
and will not realistically know they need to disclose. This appears to
place new burdens on a participatant.

For example, participating in one discussion in a meeting could
obligate an individual to disclose in a bunch of areas where they
practically have no knowledge (they may have knowledge of IPR, but not
know it covers some document they haven't even read).  I do not think
it is advisable or practical to place obligations on individuals that
are not "making a contribution", per the traditional definition.

Consider WGs that have a relatively large scope, where an individual
only has interest in one or two documents/technologies. The individual
does not care about (or follow) e