The IETF sets up various mailing lists with a set scope.
The GEOPRIV mailing list is to progress the discussions allocated to the GEOPRIV working group. WG discussions on IPR are limited to using the IPR statements to decide whether a document should progress with the current technical solution, or a different technical solution.
Quote BCP 79:
(C) Where Intellectual Property Rights have been disclosed for IETF
Documents as provided in Section 6 of this document, the IETF
Executive Director shall request from the discloser of such IPR,
a written assurance that upon approval by the IESG for
publication as RFCs of the relevant IETF specification(s), all
persons will be able to obtain the right to implement, use,
distribute and exercise other rights with respect to Implementing
Technology under one of the licensing options specified in
Section 6.5 below unless such a statement has already been
submitted. The working group proposing the use of the technology
with respect to which the Intellectual Property Rights are
disclosed may assist the IETF Executive Director in this effort.
The results of this procedure shall not, in themselves, block
publication of an IETF Document or advancement of an IETF
Document along the standards track. A working group may take
into consideration the results of this procedure in evaluating
the technology, and the IESG may defer approval when a delay may
facilitate obtaining such assurances. The results will, however,
be recorded by the IETF Executive Director, and be made available
online.
8. Evaluating Alternative Technologies in IETF Working Groups
In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR
claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of
royalty-free licensing. But IETF working groups have the discretion
to adopt technology with a commitment of fair and non-discriminatory
terms, or even with no licensing commitment, if they feel that this
technology is superior enough to alternatives with fewer IPR claims
or free licensing to outweigh the potential cost of the licenses.
Over the last few years the IETF has adopted stricter requirements
for some security technologies. It has become common to have a
mandatory-to-implement security technology in IETF technology
specifications. This is to ensure that there will be at least one
common security technology present in all implementations of such a
specification that can be used in all cases. This does not limit the
specification from including other security technologies, the use of
which could be negotiated between implementations. An IETF consensus
has developed that no mandatory-to-implement security technology can
be specified in an IETF specification unless it has no known IPR
claims against it or a royalty-free license is available to
implementers of the specification unless there is a very good reason
to do so. This limitation does not extend to other security
technologies in the same specification if they are not listed as
mandatory-to-implement.
It should also be noted that the absence of IPR disclosures is not
the same thing as the knowledge that there will be no IPR claims in
the future. People or organizations not currently involved in the
IETF or people or organizations that discover IPR they feel to be
relevant in their patent portfolios can make IPR disclosures at any
time.
It should also be noted that the validity and enforceability of any
IPR may be challenged for legitimate reasons, and the mere existence
of an IPR disclosure should not automatically be taken to mean that
the disclosed IPR is valid or enforceable. Although the IETF can
make no actual determination of validity, enforceability or
applicability of any particular IPR claim, it is reasonable that a
working group will take into account on their own opinions of the
validity, enforceability or applicability of Intellectual Property
Rights in their evaluation of alternative technologies.
If you want a different discussion to that on IPR, go to some other list in the IETF.
Keith
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org
> [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of todd glassey
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 3:42 PM
> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
> Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] IPR on geopriv-arch
>
> On 10/18/2010 6:33 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> > The discussion in this direction is irrelevant to the geopriv group.
> >
> > The geopriv group has no responsibility for finding whether
> the IPR declarations are valid (nor does the IETF), or indeed
> for chasing missing IPR declarations (which the IETF probably
> as a whole does have - but you do that on different lists).
> >
> > The sole responsibility of the geopriv group on this
> question is to decide whether the proposed RFC should change
> direction to another solution as a result of these declarations.
> >
>
> No Keith, The SOLE RESPONSIBILITY of the participants is to
> formally represent their sponsors, and yours is clearly Alcatel.
>
> So lets look at Alcatel's IP Acquisition rules Keith... they
> are pretty solid and are much stronger than anything the
> parties in the IETF have set up.
>
> And finally lets ask, as a good and law-abiding
> representative, have you reported these issues to them? or
> is this yet another matter where the sponsor is held legally
> in the dark by their IETF representative(s) creating a
> massive liability for them?
>
> Todd Glassey
>
> > For my two cents, carry on as we are.
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org
> >> [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of todd glassey
> >> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 4:16 AM
> >> To: geopriv@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] IPR on geopriv-arch
> >>
> >> On 10/15/2010 2:34 PM, todd glassey wrote:
> >>> On 10/15/2010 8:03 AM, Carl Reed wrote:
> >>>> Todd -
> >>>>
> >>
> >> My apologies to the Group for this caustic response but
> the idea that
> >> anyone can be not-responsible for bad IP practices because someone
> >> else said to is funny.
> >>
> >> Again my apologies to the group for this commentary.
> >>
> >> Todd
> >>
> >>>> As far as I know, you are not an IP lawyer, so don't
> >> pretend to be one.
> >>>
> >>> Really Carl??? I have three pieces of litigation over IP
> >> infringement
> >>> in the US and California Courts right now and one of them
> is on the
> >>> GPS Location Control Patent. I have another in the
> Bankruptcy Court
> >>> over a BK Fraud Complaint I filed.
> >>>
> >>>> Before making accusations, I would suggest you learn how
> the IETF
> >>>> (and other standards organizations) develop their IPR policies.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Oh you mean this WG -
> >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ipr/charter/ ???
> >>>
> >>> You may want to check the groups archive before shoving
> >> your leg any
> >>> farther down your throat unless you like looking like an idiot.
> >>>
> >>> So lets talk about IPR and the use of any IPR since this
> constrains
> >>> potential issues for this WG. The idea that you are not
> responsible
> >>> for laws you break because the idiots in the IPR WG said you were
> >>> clear is so funny I cant stand it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> IP per 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) - AKA "the Hatch Wellman Act"...
> >>> -----------------------------------------------------------
> >>> As it happens "Hatch Wellman" is REAL CLEAR and the use by a
> >>> commercial entity of ANY PATENTED IP IS ILLEGAL UNDER 35 U.S.C. §
> >>> 271(a), which stated that mere "use" of a patented
> >> invention, without
> >>> either manufacture or sale, is actionable. It reasoned that
> >>> experiments that are in keeping with the legitimate
> business of an
> >>> alleged infringer are not exempt from infringement.
> >>>
> >>> We tried to tell this to Harald and he ignored us... and
> in fact he
> >>> banished me for insisting "the IETF was incompetent for
> refusing to
> >>> review how 35 USC 271 actually plays into this". Check the
> >> archive...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> IETF Paper Tigers
> >>> -----------------
> >>> One of my favorite IETF paper-tigers (you know those fictitious
> >>> full-body condoms that techies put in place to justify
> "forcing the
> >>> rest of the world to ignore their incompetence?") is the
> Copyright
> >>> Act's Research Exemption, Section 107. The problem is that
> >> (C) SS107
> >>> does not set aside HATCH WELLMAN and that's the issue here.
> >>>
> >>> The idea was from what I understood from Harald and the
> rest of the
> >>> IPR Team "that since it (the iETF) is only publishing paper about
> >>> technology no IP Rights to devices or to enable the actual
> >> use of that
> >>> IP in software or hardware are necessary" but this shows
> how really
> >>> stupid the management of the IPR WG is. The law is the
> law, and the
> >>> use of patented IPR in this forum is controlled under
> >> Hatch-Wellman and that is that.
> >>>
> >>> Under Hatch-Wellman the publication of those patented IP's in a
> >>> research document by any entity who's commercial in form is
> >>> prohibited. In instances where that entity's commercial
> >> products are
> >>> pure research is also a commercial use. So no, the IETF is
> >> not exempt
> >>> since it's "business" now that there is an IP Management
> >> Trust with
> >>> paid staff is to protect that IP, this created a whole new
> >> world of hurt I think.
> >>>
> >>> Here is a pointer to an analysis out of the ABA on the effect of
> >>> Hatch-Wellman.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> http://www.abanet.org/genpractice/magazine/2005/mar/hatchwaxmanact.ht
> >> m
> >>> l
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> How stupid can the management of the IETF really get?
> >>> -----------------------------------------
> >>> Pretty freaking stupid is the answer I think.
> >>>
> >>> You understand under Hatch-Wellman and the (C) ss 107 research
> >>> exemption, that this functionally means that "NO ONE MAY
> >> REPRODUCE ANY
> >>> IETF WORKS FOR ANY PURPOSE BUT THE ADVANCEMENT OF THOSE STANDARDS
> >>> WITHIN THE IETF STANDARDS PROCESS" and if that IP Contains ANY
> >>> patented IP its protected from even the IETF's use because of its
> >>> licensing models today by Hatch Wellman.
> >>>
> >>> One would also think that this means that NO ONE may claim that
> >>> research exemption for any purpose after that research is
> complete.
> >>> ----------------------
> >>> Meaning that once the IETF Standard is issued no one could
> >> reproduce
> >>> those documents since the sponsoring entity - the IETF would have
> >>> formally completed the research which created that work-product.
> >>> Likewise when all formal work in extending or formalizing
> >> that product
> >>> was completed like what happens with many IETF initiative
> when the
> >>> RFC's are issued, that also would end the research phase of that
> >>> effort terminating ANY AND ALL PUBLICATION rights against
> that IETF
> >>> publication as well. Ooops...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If that party is a commercial entity - the IETF Licensing
> >> is worthless.
> >>> ------------------------------------
> >>> What that probably means is that anyone who is
> reproducing the IETF
> >>> Publications outside of the standards process for any use
> >> other than
> >>> the limited scope of that specific initiatives research,
> >> like all of
> >>> the parties operating the hundreds of mirrors or those supplying
> >>> hardcopy as part of their documentation packages as another
> >> instance,
> >>> is in direct violation of the copyright act and also possibly the
> >>> Hatch-Wellman act which opens them to litigation and
> >> possible prosecution one would think.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Why hasn't this blown up 'till now?
> >>> -----------------------------------
> >>> Good question - the answer is no one has pressed a formal
> complaint
> >>> against the parties who are participating in the IETF
> yet, but you
> >>> gotta know that this is coming and that the IETF is going to get
> >>> bitch-slapped (I think that's the prop-ah "Term of Art")
> >> when someone
> >>> (some commercial
> >>> sponsor) is sued for what their staff do in what I casually
> >> describe
> >>> as this grossly unregulated Standards Development Group IMHO.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> BTW - who specifically do you work for, I want to bring
> their legal
> >>> people into this process now and show them your commentary
> >> here. I am
> >>> betting they will not be too happy with you.
> >>>
> >>> Or you could just apologize formally...
> >>>
> >>> Todd Glassey
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "todd glassey"
> >>>> <tglassey@earthlink.net>
> >>>> To: "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com>
> >>>> Cc: <geopriv@ietf.org>
> >>>> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 8:34 AM
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] IPR on geopriv-arch
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 10/13/2010 4:35 PM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
> >>>>>> Todd,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you believe there are IPR concerns related to
> active GEOPRIV
> >>>>>> documents, the Note Well statement (by reference to RFC
> >> 3979) says
> >>>>>> that you must disclose them according to the directions here:
> >>>>>> <http://www.ietf.org/ipr-instructions>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have already filed numerous instances of claims in
> the IPR Area
> >>>>> Richard for GEOPRIOV and Location Based Services -
> considering I
> >>>>> invented specifically them 13 years ago.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> By the way - I have a new control protocol for SMART MUNITIONS
> >>>>> including those which are used in some of the Ballistic
> >> Sensor Fused
> >>>>> Munitions (of which GPS Guided devices are just one instance).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> While I see from the IPR tracker that you are well
> familiar with
> >>>>>> this process, I do not see any filings from you with
> >> regard to this
> >>>>>> particular document.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is NO contractual practice the IETF can require of
> >> someone who
> >>>>> is not formally a member of the IETF with regard to these
> >> filings.
> >>>>> In fact the ONLY people the term MUST can possibly
> pertain to are
> >>>>> 1) Parties submitting data to the IETF for republication; or
> >>>>> 2) Members of the IETF who are contractually tied to
> NoteWell and
> >>>>> the other IPR rules.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So... anytime you want to force those words of yours into
> >> stone and
> >>>>> we can address the issues of #1 or #2 then fine. The idea that
> >>>>> after an initial disclosure of the existence of IPR
> >> pertaining to a
> >>>>> specific subject constitutes a fraud on the IETF's part in
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A) Requiring permanent diligence to meet the demand
> term MUST per
> >>>>> your analysis
> >>>>>
> >>>>> B) Having permanent legal staff also on call to address
> >> these issues
> >>>>> and to manage the incompetence of the IETF and its members.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> By the way the failure of the IETF representative of any
> >> entity to
> >>>>> convey legal notices to their own legal department is
> also a key
> >>>>> issue since most technology companies still hide from
> what their
> >>>>> engineers do here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Todd
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --Richard
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Oct 13, 2010, at 3:44 PM, todd glassey wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 10/12/2010 10:44 AM, James M. Polk wrote:
> >>>>>>>> At 11:05 AM 10/12/2010, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> <hat type="individual"/>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I am comfortable with this document moving forward. I have
> >>>>>>>>> looked at the Enterasys patents, and it looks to me
> like they
> >>>>>>>>> relate to specific applications (location-based
> >> access control
> >>>>>>>>> and routing), so that they don't intrude on a general
> >> location
> >>>>>>>>> architecture. With regard to the Qualcomm
> disclosure, their
> >>>>>>>>> reluctance to provide information makes me a little
> >> nervous, but
> >>>>>>>>> it still seems like this document is abstract
> enough that it
> >>>>>>>>> would be useful in spite of IPR claims on some specific
> >>>>>>>>> realizations.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It's hard to feel comfortable about the unknown.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> James
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes but one thing is certain and that is that this same
> >> draft also
> >>>>>>> violates the GEOPRIV IPR notices we already have on
> >> file as well so...
> >>>>>>> there are other issues.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And FWIW - the next Court date in the first
> litigation of that
> >>>>>>> patent issue... is tomorrow with the next one being the
> >> 9th of November.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Todd Glassey
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --Richard
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2010, at 11:58 AM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> <hat type="chair"/>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hey all,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Two IPR disclosures have been filed with regard to
> >> draft-ietf-
> >>>>>>>>>> geopriv-arch, one from Qualcomm and one from Enterasys:
> >>>>>>>>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1394/>
> >>>>>>>>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1402/>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The Qualcomm disclosure relates to an unpublished
> US patent
> >>>>>>>>>> application, so no information is available from the
> >> USPTO website.
> >>>>>>>>>> Robert and I have asked Qualcomm for further
> >> technical details,
> >>>>>>>>>> but have not received any. The Enterasys disclosure
> >> relates to
> >>>>>>>>>> three issued patents.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The question for the group is whether the WG is
> comfortable
> >>>>>>>>>> moving these documents forward given these IPR
> >> disclosures. If
> >>>>>>>>>> you have thoughts on this question, please send
> them to the
> >>>>>>>>>> list no later than Monday, 18 Oct.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>> --Richard
> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>> Geopriv mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>> Geopriv@ietf.org
> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>> Geopriv mailing list
> >>>>>>>>> Geopriv@ietf.org
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>> Geopriv mailing list
> >>>>>>>> Geopriv@ietf.org
> >>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>>>>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >>>>>>>> Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3192 -
> Release Date:
> >>>>>>>> 10/11/10 23:34:00
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>
> >> //----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This message may contain confidential and/or privileged
> >> information.
> >>>>>>> If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive
> >> this for the
> >>>>>>> addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose or take
> any action
> >>>>>>> based on this message or any information herein. If you have
> >>>>>>> received this message in error, please advise the sender
> >>>>>>> immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> Geopriv mailing list
> >>>>>>> Geopriv@ietf.org
> >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >>>>>> Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3195 - Release Date:
> >>>>>> 10/13/10 11:34:00
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>>
> >> //-----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This message may contain confidential and/or privileged
> >> information.
> >>>>> If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive
> >> this for the
> >>>>> addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose or take any
> >> action based
> >>>>> on this message or any information herein. If you have
> >> received this
> >>>>> message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply
> >>>>> e-mail and delete this message.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you for your cooperation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Geopriv mailing list
> >>>>> Geopriv@ietf.org
> >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >>>> Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3198 - Release Date:
> >>>> 10/14/10 23:34:00
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >>> Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3198 - Release Date:
> >>> 10/14/10 23:34:00
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> //-----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >> This message may contain confidential and/or privileged
> information.
> >> If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the
> >> addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose or take any
> action based
> >> on this message or any information herein. If you have
> received this
> >> message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply
> >> e-mail and delete this message.
> >>
> >> Thank you for your cooperation.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Geopriv mailing list
> >> Geopriv@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> //-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
> If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the
> addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose or take any action based
> on this message or any information herein. If you have received this
> message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
> and delete this message.
>
> Thank you for your cooperation.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
