http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr hourly 1 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 http://gmane.org/img/gmane-25t.png http://gmane.org http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/6041 <pre> 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 </pre> tsg 2013-05-21T20:35:43 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/6040 <pre>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: </pre> tsg 2013-04-29T17:40:09 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/6039 <pre>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 </pre> tsg 2013-04-29T17:07:24 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/6038 <pre>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 any reviews) and we were invited to submit the final paper and a payment of $500+ fee to present the paper. We decided to use the fee for better purposes than making Prof. Hamid Arabnia (Chairman of WORLDCOMP) rich. After that, we received few reminders from WORLDCOMP to pay the fee but we never responded. We MUST say that you should look at the above website if you have any thoughts to submit a paper to WORLDCOMP. DBLP and other indexing agencies have stopped indexing WORLDCOMP’s proceedings since 2011 due to its fakeness. See http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/icai/index.html for of one of the conferences of WORLDCOMP and notice that there is no listing after 2010. See Section 2 of http://sites.google.com/site/dumpconf for comments from well-known researchers about WORLDCOMP. The status of your WORLDCOMP papers can be changed from scientific to other (i.e., junk or non-technical) at any time. Better not to have a paper than having it in WORLDCOMP and spoil the resume and peace of mind forever! Our study revealed that WORLDCOMP is a money making business, using University of Georgia mask, for Prof. Hamid Arabnia. He is throwing out a small chunk of that money (around 20 dollars per paper published in WORLDCOMP’s proceedings) to his puppet (Mr. Ashu Solo or A.M.G. Solo) who publicizes WORLDCOMP and also defends it at various forums, using fake/anonymous names. The puppet uses fake names and defames other conferences to divert traffic to WORLDCOMP. He also makes anonymous phone calls and tries to threaten the critiques of WORLDCOMP (See Item 7 of Section 5 of above website). That is, the puppet does all his best to get a maximum number of papers published at WORLDCOMP to get more money into his (and Prof. Hamid Arabnia’s) pockets. Monte Carlo Resort (the venue of WORLDCOMP for more than 10 years, until 2012) has refused to provide the venue for WORLDCOMP’13 because of the fears of their image being tarnished due to WORLDCOMP’s fraudulent activities. That is why WORLDCOMP’13 is taking place at a different resort. WORLDCOMP will not be held after 2013. The draft paper submission deadline is over but still there are no committee members, no reviewers, and there is no conference Chairman. The only contact details available on WORLDCOMP’s website is just an email address! Let us make a direct request to Prof. Hamid arabnia: publish all reviews for all the papers (after blocking identifiable details) since 2000 conference. Reveal the names and affiliations of all the reviewers (for each year) and how many papers each reviewer had reviewed on average. We also request him to look at the Open Challenge (Section 6) at https://sites.google.com/site/moneycomp1 Sorry for posting to multiple lists. Spreading the word is the only way to stop this bogus conference. Please forward this message to other mailing lists and people. We are shocked with Prof. Hamid Arabnia and his puppet’s activities http://worldcomp-fake-bogus.blogspot.com Search Google using the keyword worldcomp fake for additional links. _______________________________________________ Ipr-wg mailing list Ipr-wg&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg </pre> johnsonhammond1< at >hushmail.com 2013-04-27T17:47:36 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/6037 <pre>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 </pre> Black, David 2013-04-26T21:43:44 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/6036 <pre> 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 </pre> Brian E Carpenter 2013-04-26T21:17:44 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/6035 <pre> "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." </pre> Scott Brim 2013-04-26T21:12:26 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/6034 <pre> 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 </pre> Brian E Carpenter 2013-04-26T21:04:54 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/6033 <pre>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: </pre> tsg 2013-04-26T21:04:21 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/6032 <pre> Resubmit cleaned-up draft under new name. Grüße, Carsten </pre> Carsten Bormann 2013-04-26T20:58:38 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/6031 <pre> 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. </pre> Scott Brim 2013-04-26T20:55:40 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/6030 <pre>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 </pre> Brian E Carpenter 2013-04-26T20:49:11 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/6029 <pre>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&lt; at &gt;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 Carpenter wrote: _______________________________________________ Ipr-wg mailing list Ipr-wg&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg </pre> GTW 2013-04-26T20:24:27 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/6028 <pre>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: </pre> tsg 2013-04-26T19:50:17 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/6027 <pre>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 </pre> Brian E Carpenter 2013-04-26T19:44:44 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/6026 <pre> 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 </pre> tsg 2013-04-18T12:45:12 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/6025 <pre> FWIW, I agree with what Thomas says above. Jari </pre> Jari Arkko 2013-04-18T12:03:05 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/6024 <pre>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? - ================================ My gut level from the real world is that means that the WG's initial founders and its Sponsors are probably still liable and its their management and possibly any external sponsors therein who hold that liability. I could be totally wrong but I dont think so. If that is true then to support this need for retention any WG which is maintained outside of the main IETF Web Profile through its own email archive and service. The issue is of course how the legal integrity of that data is maintained in a world where its so important to be right that fraud is a simple issue to justify that being right. Any thoughts? Todd </pre> tsg 2013-04-15T17:16:22 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/6023 <pre> 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? </pre> tsg 2013-04-15T15:40:11 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/6022 <pre> +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 finds options for all sorts of technologies not related to DHCP itself. If one participates in that WG on one document, that should not automatically drag in disclosure obligations on all other technologies the WG happens to be looking at. Similar issues can arise in other WGs, e.g., ones that have a lot of documents in addition to the core WG technologies. Would speaking at the microphone on one document, for example, lead to obligtions to disclose on *individual* submissions that (typically) get a 5 min ute presentation slot? The scope of disclosures and obligations to disclose should stay limited to the specific technologies an individual really is contributing to or "participating in". I worry that expanding the obligation beyond that (as the above seems to suggest) will lead to new problems and place expanded obligations on participants that are not desirable. Thomas +1 _______________________________________________ Ipr-wg mailing list Ipr-wg&lt; at &gt;ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg </pre> Michael Cameron 2013-04-15T14:46:41 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/6021 <pre>I was not able to attend the BOF, so was not able to participate there. Barry Leiba &lt;barryleiba&lt; at &gt;computer.org&gt; 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) everything the WG is involved in (or happens to discuss during a specific meeting). Look at a WG like DHCP, where one finds options for all sorts of technologies not related to DHCP itself. If one participates in that WG on one document, that should not automatically drag in disclosure obligations on all other technologies the WG happens to be looking at. Similar issues can arise in other WGs, e.g., ones that have a lot of documents in addition to the core WG technologies. Would speaking at the microphone on one document, for example, lead to obligtions to disclose on *individual* submissions that (typically) get a 5 minute presentation slot? The scope of disclosures and obligations to disclose should stay limited to the specific technologies an individual really is contributing to or "participating in". I worry that expanding the obligation beyond that (as the above seems to suggest) will lead to new problems and place expanded obligations on participants that are not desirable. Thomas </pre> Thomas Narten 2013-04-15T14:08:21 Search the mailing list at Gmane query http://search.gmane.org/?group=$group=gmane.ietf.ipr