Harald Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You can't change your earlier public statement; that would be
> tampering with the historical record.
The IETF appears to permit patent disclosures to be removed at the
request of submitters. Search for 'remove' on the list if disclosures.
Is this
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Harald Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
You can't change your earlier public statement; that would be
tampering with the historical record.
The IETF appears to permit patent disclosures to be removed at the
request of submitters. Search for 'remove' on th
Harald Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Harald Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>
>>> You can't change your earlier public statement; that would be
>>> tampering with the historical record.
>>>
>>
>> The IETF appears to permit patent disclosures
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Harald Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
At least one of the removed patent licenses promises to make available
patent licenses on fair, reasonable, reciprocal and non-discriminatory
terms. It seems unfortunate that IETF allows organizations to file such
claims a
Harald Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Harald Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>
>> At least one of the removed patent licenses promises to make available
>> patent licenses on fair, reasonable, reciprocal and non-discriminatory
>> terms. It seems u
At 04:59 13-08-2008, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
On the other hand (trying to play devil's advocate), if the promise
was made by someone in the organization that did not have authority
to commit the organization to that statement, I could see why the
responsible persons for that organization would
--On Wednesday, August 13, 2008 2:21 PM +0200 Simon Josefsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If the IETF removes patent disclosures, I believe the IETF
will find itself in the position of evaluating the
_correctness_ of patent related claims. This seems like the
wrong approach.
Or the authorit
On 2008-08-14 05:10, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Wednesday, August 13, 2008 2:21 PM +0200 Simon Josefsson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If the IETF removes patent disclosures, I believe the IETF
>> will find itself in the position of evaluating the
>> _correctness_ of patent related claims
Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2008-08-14 05:10, John C Klensin wrote:
>>
>> --On Wednesday, August 13, 2008 2:21 PM +0200 Simon Josefsson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> If the IETF removes patent disclosures, I believe the IETF
>>> will find itself in the position of e
Simon Josefsson skrev:
Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I wasn't even aware, during my tenure as chair, that the 'remove' button
existed. The only removals I recall, which may or may not be in the
numbers Simon quoted, were completely bogus and nonsensical disclosures
clearly f
Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson skrev:
>> Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I wasn't even aware, during my tenure as chair, that the 'remove' button
>>> existed. The only removals I recall, which may or may not be in the
>>> number
On Aug 14, 2008, at 3:25 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Simon Josefsson skrev:
Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I wasn't even aware, during my tenure as chair, that the 'remove'
button
existed. The only removals I recall, wh
Marshall Eubanks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would divide this a little differently
>
> - there are removals that can be done automatically. Some of these
> would be
>- exact duplicates
>- spam (or any other postings) _that don't mention patent rights or
> IPR_
>- postings with off
On Aug 14, 2008, at 7:20 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Marshall Eubanks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I would divide this a little differently
- there are removals that can be done automatically. Some of these
would be
- exact duplicates
- spam (or any other postings) _that don't mention pate
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 09:25:42AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> request should be well established. I can think of at least two reasons
> that are valid:
>
> * Exact duplicates
> * Spam
As soon as you have evaluated the claim, even for "exact duplication"
or "it's spam", haven't you done exa
On Aug 13, 2008, at 7:10 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
However, if people were filing disclosures that would not be useful
(slanderous statements, duplicate-by-accident filings, stuff that
turns out to be false and which the submitter wants redacted), we
thought that having the discretionary
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:04:37 -0400 Marshall Eubanks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In the US, I believe that every company must have a counsel of record.
>Verifying a disclosure with that counsel
>should be sufficient. I think that there are similar provisions in
>other countries.
I don't parti
Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 09:25:42AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>> request should be well established. I can think of at least two reasons
>> that are valid:
>>
>> * Exact duplicates
>> * Spam
>
> As soon as you have evaluated the claim, even for
At 03:59 14-08-2008, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
One solution would be to require a TDMA like confirmation of the
existence of posters (do they
exist, and are they with the company they claim to be speaking for)
_before_ the posting is accepted.
The submission form could send out an email to the tw
Hi all,
Nokia is one of the companies which submitted a number of withdrawal
requests for previous disclosures. In no case (that I'm aware of) our
intention has been to sneak out of a licensing commitment. Instead, we
submitted withdrawal requests with the intention to keep the IETF patent
datab
August 14, 2008 9:30 AM
> To: Andrew Sullivan
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Removal of IETF patent disclosures?
>
> Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 09:25:42AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >
> >> request shoul
ilto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Stephan Wenger
> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 9:24 AM
> To: IETF Discussion
> Subject: Re: Removal of IETF patent disclosures?
>
> Hi all,
>
> Nokia is one of the companies which submitted a number of
> withdrawal requests fo
--On Thursday, August 14, 2008 9:43 AM -0500 Eric Gray
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Another point to consider is that a very-likely-to-be-valid
reason for removing an IPR disclosure is if an organization's
legal representative(s) convince the IETF's legal beagles
that an IPR disclosure was mad
sson; Andrew Sullivan
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Removal of IETF patent disclosures?
> Importance: High
>
>
>
> --On Thursday, August 14, 2008 9:43 AM -0500 Eric Gray
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Another point to consider is that a ver
On 8/14/08 11:15 AM, Powers Chuck-RXCP20 allegedly wrote:
I would be curious to hear the reasoning for keeping these on file,
apart from 'historical record', since I am not convinced the IETF IPR
database is the right place to hold onto IPR disclosures simply for
historical purposes that only app
--On Thursday, August 14, 2008 11:15 AM -0400 Powers
Chuck-RXCP20 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think that Stephan raised some very good points as to why
allowing some IPR disclosures to be removed actually makes
sense. Since quite often IPR disclosures are made for a
specific ID in a specifi
--On Thursday, August 14, 2008 10:30 AM -0500 Eric Gray
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John,
What you said is all true, but obviously it has nothing
to do with what you responded to. I said (in effect) that -
if one set of lawyers contact another set of lawyers, we may
have to take som
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 10:34 AM
> To: Powers Chuck-RXCP20; Stephan Wenger; IETF Discussion
> Subject: RE: Removal of IETF patent disclosures?
>
>
>
> --On Thursday, August 14, 2008 11:15 AM -0400 Powers
> Chuck-RXCP20 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
Yes.
--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson
> -Original Message-
> From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 12:00 PM
> To: Eric Gray; Simon Josefsson; Andrew Sullivan
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Removal of IETF
Hi John,
please note that the vast majority of IETF IPR disclosures promise patent
licenses only on technologies described in an I-D in the event that the I-D
becomes an IETF "standard". This avoids the problems you mentioned nicely,
I think, at the expense of some uncertainty when people impleme
On 2008-08-14 19:25, Simon Josefsson wrote:
...
> If removals should be permitted, the reasons for accepting a removal
> request should be well established. I can think of at least two reasons
> that are valid:
>
> * Exact duplicates
> * Spam
>
> Beyond this I'm less sure we can get away the lia
On 2008-08-15 01:48, SM wrote:
> At 03:59 14-08-2008, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>> One solution would be to require a TDMA like confirmation of the
>> existence of posters (do they
>> exist, and are they with the company they claim to be speaking for)
>> _before_ the posting is accepted.
>
> The sub
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Harald Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >> Harald Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >>
> >> At least one of the removed patent licenses promises to make available
> >> patent licenses on fair, reason
Have read all this thus far and complex problem/discussion and good to have
here. I know this is heresy to many vendors but I believe the IETF should not
permit at some date in the future any part of a specification to have any IPR
from any vendor that is accountable to patents or royalties. I
--On Friday, August 15, 2008 10:02 AM +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2008-08-14 19:25, Simon Josefsson wrote:
...
If removals should be permitted, the reasons for accepting a
removal request should be well established. I can think of
at least two reasons that are val
On Aug 15, 2008, at 10:05 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, August 15, 2008 10:02 AM +1200 Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
On 2008-08-14 19:25, Simon Josefsson wrote:
...
If removals should be permitted, the reasons for accepting a
removal request should be well establ
gt; Chuck
> -
> Chuck Powers,
> Motorola, Inc
> phone: 512-427-7261
> mobile: 512-576-0008
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of Stephan Wenger
>> Sent: Thursday, August 1
> From: "Bound, Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I believe the IETF should not permit at some date in the future any
> part of a specification to have any IPR from any vendor that is
> accountable to patents or royalties. In simpler terms anything we
> develop in the IETF is public d
phone: 512-427-7261
mobile: 512-576-0008
> -Original Message-
> From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 9:32 AM
> To: Powers Chuck-RXCP20
> Cc: Stephan Wenger; IETF Discussion
> Subject: Re: Removal of IETF patent disclosures?
>
Stephan Wenger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi John,
>
> please note that the vast majority of IETF IPR disclosures promise patent
> licenses only on technologies described in an I-D in the event that the I-D
> becomes an IETF "standard". This avoids the problems you mentioned nicely,
> I think,
John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Well, here's a quote from #644, which I had removed:
>>
>> "is ipv6 the ultimate version of the internet protocol now?
>> is possible send segments of 256 bytes in the ipv6 protocol?
>> support microsoft corporation the ipv6 protocol in the
>> microsof
I'm trying to summarize in a way that might someday be translated into IETF
process, and not Yet Another Great Discussion On Ietf@ietf.org That Doesn't
Result in Change...
I agree with John's suggestion that IPR disclosures be handled as "moderated
postings", and I assume that we could actuall
n't see any
>> value in keeping the IDs that they applied to in the first place.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chuck
>> -
>> Chuck Powers,
>> Motorola, Inc
>> phone: 512-427-7261
>> mobile: 512-576-0008
>>
>The problem is that there is no time limit on when the I-D can become an
>IETF standard. Someone can pick up a 5 year old I-D and do the work
>involved in getting it standardized; I believe our process allows for
>that.
They pretty much have to write a new I-D though, and, unless it the
same aut
Spencer,
Let me offer one small variation, extracted from comments I've
made in an off-list discussion. I promised myself I wasn't
going to write this note, but circumstances change...
--On Friday, August 15, 2008 10:41 AM -0500 Spencer Dawkins
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm trying to su
It seems like there is a lot of concern about removals, and some
concern about original publication of spam, drivel, and duplicate
notices. Here is a proposal for a way forward:
1) Original submissions to the IPR repository are moderated, but only
to prevent publication of spam and drivel. If
Paul,
FWIW, this works for me.
One quibble: I would suggest that moderation for spam, drivel,
and duplicates ought to be a reasonable Secretariat (or IAD, or
IAD-assigned) task. If the IETF and IAB chair don't have
better things to do with their time than to moderate this sort
of posting,
08 12:16 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Removal of IETF patent disclosures?
>
> It seems like there is a lot of concern about removals, and
> some concern about original publication of spam, drivel, and
> duplicate notices. Here is a proposal for a way forward:
>
>
At 1:33 PM -0400 8/15/08, John C Klensin wrote:
FWIW, this works for me.
One quibble: I would suggest that moderation for spam, drivel, and
duplicates ought to be a reasonable Secretariat (or IAD, or
IAD-assigned) task.
Heh. I put that provision in specifically because I thought *you*
would
At 1:37 PM -0400 8/15/08, Powers Chuck-RXCP20 wrote:
In general, not a bad approach. However, does a valid amendment include
the statement "this IPR declaration is now null and void, since the
technology did not make it into the targeted standard"? This would
resolve the issue of having IPR decla
Ted Hardie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 7:31 AM -0700 8/15/08, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>By submitting a draft to the IETF, you (normally) give the IETF rights
>>to build technology based on it.
>
> While I am sure that you don't mean to confuse this issue,
> "to build technology based on it"
Your process seems fine to me, however, does it have any advantage
compared to having [EMAIL PROTECTED] be a moderated mailing list, run
under the same rules as any other IETF mailing list?
We already have processes to deal with spam, moderation, DoS attacks,
and even appeal paths. You can easily
On 2008-08-16 06:23, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 1:37 PM -0400 8/15/08, Powers Chuck-RXCP20 wrote:
>> In general, not a bad approach. However, does a valid amendment include
>> the statement "this IPR declaration is now null and void, since the
>> technology did not make it into the targeted standard"
Ted Hardie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>The problem is that there is no time limit on when the I-D can become an
>>IETF standard. Someone can pick up a 5 year old I-D and do the work
>>involved in getting it standardized; I believe our process allows for
>>that.
>
> They pretty much have to writ
At 12:07 AM +0200 8/16/08, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Your process seems fine to me, however, does it have any advantage
compared to having [EMAIL PROTECTED] be a moderated mailing list, run
under the same rules as any other IETF mailing list?
Yes, many.
- It keeps the current URLs in place.
- It
>
>For individual documents your argument appears solid, but I don't think
>it would hold for WG documents that have the same draft name. As we
>know, some WG's have been open for many years so picking up an expired
>WG document years later doesn't seem entirely unlikely.
AVT's chair just stepped
Ted Hardie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>For individual documents your argument appears solid, but I don't think
>>it would hold for WG documents that have the same draft name. As we
>>know, some WG's have been open for many years so picking up an expired
>>WG document years later doesn't seem
Understood.
/jim
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Noel Chiappa
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 10:34 AM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Removal of IETF patent disclosures?
>
&
Jim has a fine idea in principle, but in practice defensive patents are
necessary. Keep in mind that the patent system is changing to
first-to-file, from first-to-invent. Prior art is still not patentable,
but the patent law still gives significant advantages to patent holders
over public domain t
Hi Simon, all,
Before some "silence means approval" assumption kicks in here, allow me to
voice my concerns again. I continue to believe that changing the current
practice (which allows the removal of disclosures form the IETF database) is
NOT a good thing. Don't get me wrong: I don't believe th
it seems to be a real bad idea to let people actually remove
any type of IPR statement that might have been relied upon
by a WG in any way and since its hard to figure out if
thats the case, it seems like a real bad idea to let someone
remove a IPR statement at all
having a way for someone (prope
Stephan Wenger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Simon, all,
>
> Before some "silence means approval" assumption kicks in here, allow me to
> voice my concerns again. I continue to believe that changing the current
> practice (which allows the removal of disclosures form the IETF database) is
> NO
I have to agree with a number of other folks. Patent statements can not
be removed. It is probably reasonable to have a section for "apparently
not currently relevant" disclosures. But the disclosures, and the terms
therein, are still active. This is important for many reasons,
including co
On Aug 19, 2008, at 8:26 AM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
it seems to be a real bad idea to let people actually remove
any type of IPR statement that might have been relied upon
by a WG in any way and since its hard to figure out if
thats the case, it seems like a real bad idea to let someone
remov
9, 2008 8:20 AM
> To: Simon Josefsson
> Cc: IETF Discussion
> Subject: Re: Removal of IETF patent disclosures?
>
> I have to agree with a number of other folks. Patent
> statements can not be removed. It is probably reasonable to
> have a section for "appare
"Powers Chuck-RXCP20" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't feel that strongly about being able to remove patent disclosures
> which no longer have any value; if the concensus is to keep them in an
> increasingly cluttered list of disclosures, so be it. The only situation
> I was looking to avoid
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I have to agree with a number of other folks. Patent statements can not
be removed. It is probably reasonable to have a section for "apparently
not currently relevant" disclosures. But the disclosures, and the terms
therein, are still active. This is important for m
On 2008-08-16 10:48, Ted Hardie wrote:
...
> Reading through this, I see that the recommendation that
> an IPR discloser "withdraw a previous disclosure if a revised
> Contribution negates the previous IPR disclosure" made it into
> the BCP. Someone else will have to decide if this is already
> co
TECTED]>
To: "Ted Hardie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "John C Klensin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Simon Josefsson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Powers Chuck-RXCP20" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"IETF Discussion" <>
Sent: Tuesday, August
ussion"
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 7:07 AM
Subject: Re: Removal of IETF patent disclosures?
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I have to agree with a number of other folks. Patent statements can not
be removed. It is probably reasonable to have a section for "apparently
not currently r
70 matches
Mail list logo
