Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:00 AM, IETF Chair wrote > The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text. Please review and > comment. > > Russ > > This same text would read better to me if reordered: "NOTE WELL - By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes. - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write, say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent applications, you need to disclose that fact. - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and publicly archived. This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in BCP 79; please read it carefully. For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or review BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF)." That puts the most important information higher up the text and, to my eyes at least, makes it more prominent. My two cents, Ted Hardie > > === Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text === > > Note Well > > This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and > doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in > BCP 79; please read it carefully. > > The brief summary: > - By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes. > - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write, > say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent > applications, you need to disclose that fact. > - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and >publicly archived. > > For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or > review BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the > Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on > Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF).
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
I don't much like the change in approach. I think it will be too easy to brush off; the current approach has enough substance that people who brush it off put themselves in a very weak position. The old text was written with legal advice. What does counsel say about the new proposal? Regards Brian Carpenter Cell phone during IETF85: +1 847 219 0880 On 06/11/2012 15:00, IETF Chair wrote: > The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text. Please review and > comment. > > Russ > > > > === Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text === > > Note Well > > This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and > doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in > BCP 79; please read it carefully. > > The brief summary: > - By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes. > - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write, > say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent > applications, you need to disclose that fact. > - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and >publicly archived. > > For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or > review BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the > Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on > Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF).
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
Looks much better, people might even read it. > - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write, >say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent >applications, you need to disclose that fact. Perhaps "disclose that fact promptly." Pete's been reminding us that postponing IPR disclosures until last call or IESG review is not good. R's, John
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:25, John Levine wrote: > Perhaps "disclose that fact promptly." +1 Since not everyone is aware of what's going on in the IRTF: we recently made a minor modification to our IPR statement to that effect. See https://www.irtf.org/ipr One possibility would be that the IESG adopt what we did for the IRTF also for the IRTF... Lars smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
This note is rather lighter in weight and tone than its predecessor, and seems like a good direction. One suggestion: it would be good for the reference to BCP 79 be accompanied, at least in the web page in question, with a link to the BCP (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3979.txt). I could imagine someone unfamiliar with the IETF thinking that this was a reference to the Book of Common Prayer or some such thing. There is a point of disagreement between IRTF and IETF IPR Policy, or at least there appeared to be yesterday in ICCRG. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3979#section-6.1.3 states that a person who knows that someone else has IPR on something is not required, but is encouraged, to make it known. The "note well" used in ICCRG yesterday said that someone that knew of IPR belonging to someone else was required to disclose it. I'm not sure what should be done about that, but the difference seems unhelpful. On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:00 AM, IETF Chair wrote: > The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text. Please review and > comment. > > Russ > > > > === Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text === > > Note Well > > This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and > doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in > BCP 79; please read it carefully. > > The brief summary: > - By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes. > - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write, >say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent >applications, you need to disclose that fact. > - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and > publicly archived. > > For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or > review BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the > Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on > Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF). The ignorance of how to use new knowledge stockpiles exponentially. - Marshall McLuhan
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
On 06/11/2012 15:25, John Levine wrote: > Looks much better, people might even read it. > >> - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write, >>say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent >>applications, you need to disclose that fact. > > Perhaps "disclose that fact promptly." > > Pete's been reminding us that postponing IPR disclosures until last > call or IESG review is not good. Yes, and the above paragraph would make a very useful preamble to the existing NOTE WELL, which doesn't make that point explicitly. Brian
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
Hi, On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:34, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > There is a point of disagreement between IRTF and IETF IPR Policy, or at > least there appeared to be yesterday in ICCRG. > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3979#section-6.1.3 states that a person who > knows that someone else has IPR on something is not required, but is > encouraged, to make it known. The "note well" used in ICCRG yesterday said > that someone that knew of IPR belonging to someone else was required to > disclose it. I'm not sure what should be done about that, but the difference > seems unhelpful. the IRTF statement is at https://www.irtf.org/ipr. For the case you mention, it says: "Finally, the IRTF requests that you file an IPR disclosure with the IETF if you recognize IPR owned by others in any IRTF contribution." "Requests" does not mean "required." Lars smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: This note is rather lighter in weight and tone than its predecessor, and seems like a good direction. Can you explain your reasoning why this seems like "a good direction". For example, how would the new Note Well improve our situation in the Versign DNSSEC case? Link to patent: http://domainnamewire.com/2012/10/05/verisign-files-patent-application-for-way-of-transfering-hosting-on-dnssec-domains/ Comparison of Patent vs IETF work: http://ubuntuone.com/4Bz1BqOsGMkTUQgViEL0rz Paul
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > >> This note is rather lighter in weight and tone than its predecessor, and >> seems like a good direction. > > Can you explain your reasoning why this seems like "a good direction". Not being a lawyer, I can't comment on the legal details of IPR cases. What I am looking at is the understandability of a statement. A lawyer that I was speaking with recently told me that the IETF IPR policy is ambiguous; one must file IPR statements for standards, but not for informational documents. We wound up wandering through the details of legal statements, in which I felt he was working pretty hard to make words stand on their heads. To my small and non-legal mind, the simplest statement is the clearest, and what the average IETFer needs is clarity. The policy is, as far as I know, that if I have or personally and reasonably know that my company has IPR on a document or statement of any category, I need to say so and encourage my company to say so; if someone else does, I am encouraged to make the fact known. Making that statement in any more complex way gives the appearance of complexity of thought, and this particular lawyer was finding complexity/ambiguity where no complexity/ambiguity exists. KISS. > For example, how would the new Note Well improve our situation in > the Versign DNSSEC case? > > Link to patent: > http://domainnamewire.com/2012/10/05/verisign-files-patent-application-for-way-of-transfering-hosting-on-dnssec-domains/ > > Comparison of Patent vs IETF work: http://ubuntuone.com/4Bz1BqOsGMkTUQgViEL0rz > > Paul The ignorance of how to use new knowledge stockpiles exponentially. - Marshall McLuhan
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
On 11/6/2012 10:00 AM, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text. Please review and
comment.
Russ
=== Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text ===
Note Well
This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and
doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in
IPR -> Intellectual Property Rights
BCP 79; please read it carefully.
The brief summary:
- By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes.
{ BCP 79 does not describe IETF processes, so you need an additional
citation. /d }
- If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write,
say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent
applications, you need to disclose that fact.
{ the directive here is remarkably soft. much too soft, IMO. a
sentence structure that's a bit too complicated. so...}
A contribution by you consists of anything you write, say or discuss in
any IETF context. If you are aware that any contribution you make is
covered by a patent or a patent application, you are REQUIRED to
disclose that fact IMMEDIATELY.
- You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and
publicly archived.
For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or
review BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the
Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on
Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF).
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>
> { the directive here is remarkably soft. much too soft, IMO. a sentence
> structure that's a bit too complicated. so...}
>
> A contribution by you consists of anything you write, say or discuss in any
> IETF context. If you are aware that any contribution you make is covered by
> a patent or a patent application, you are REQUIRED to disclose that fact
> IMMEDIATELY.
>
I note that this is not the same language as is in BCP 79, which says:
" as soon as reasonably possible " instead of IMMEDIATELY. I don't
believe the NOTE WELL should disagree with the BCP on that point. If
this changes, it should change in the BCP first/simultaneously.
regards,
Ted Hardie
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
Brian: Jorge has reviewed this text. He says that the current text and this proposed text are both summaries. Both say that it is important to read the BCP to get all of the details. Russ On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:25 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I don't much like the change in approach. I think it will be too easy > to brush off; the current approach has enough substance that people > who brush it off put themselves in a very weak position. > > The old text was written with legal advice. What does counsel say > about the new proposal? > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > Cell phone during IETF85: +1 847 219 0880 > > On 06/11/2012 15:00, IETF Chair wrote: >> The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text. Please review and >> comment. >> >> Russ >> >> >> >> === Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text === >> >> Note Well >> >> This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and >> doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in >> BCP 79; please read it carefully. >> >> The brief summary: >> - By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes. >> - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write, >>say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent >>applications, you need to disclose that fact. >> - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and >> publicly archived. >> >> For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or >> review BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the >> Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on >> Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF).
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
Hi, Russ, can you explain why the IESG considers it necessary to tinker with the Note Well? As for the substance, I don't like the text for two reasons that can be found inline. Stephan On 11.6.2012 10:00 , "IETF Chair" wrote: >The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text. Please review >and comment. > >Russ > > > >=== Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text === > >Note Well > >This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and >doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in >BCP 79; please read it carefully. > >The brief summary: > - By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes. > - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write, >say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent >applications, you need to disclose that fact. 1) I'm not in favor of this formulation because it can be read to impose a stronger disclosure obligation on a participant than BCP 79. Specifically, as Lars has already pointed out and according to BCP 79, I'm not "needed" to disclose a patent I'm reasonably and personally aware of that reads on a document of mine, if that patent is assigned to someone else but myself and my sponsor/employer, ... For good reasons, BCP 79 does not require third party disclosures. I hope that the (few) added words can be accommodated. 2) On the other hand, the issue of timeliness is not covered at all (as others have already pointed out.) I'm especially worried of point 1, which can be seen as a policy change through the back door. If, based on this hypothetical Note Well, we would end up with an IETF disclosure culture in which third party disclosures would become the norm rather than an exception, we could well end up with a brain drain especially from folks not quite as senior in their respective company hierarchy to have the leeway to ignore company guidance about patents. > - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and > publicly archived. > >For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or >review BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the >Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on >Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF).
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
On 11/6/2012 10:14 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
That puts the most important information higher up the text and, to
my eyes at least, makes it more prominent.
+1
On 11/6/2012 12:38 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:25
AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
{ the directive here is remarkably soft. much too soft, IMO. a
sentence structure that's a bit too complicated. so...}
A contribution by you consists of anything you write, say or
discuss in any IETF context. If you are aware that any
contribution you make is covered by
a patent or a patent application, you are REQUIRED to disclose
that fact IMMEDIATELY.
I note that this is not the same language as is in BCP 79, which
says: " as soon as reasonably possible " instead of IMMEDIATELY. I
don't believe the NOTE WELL should disagree with the BCP on that
point.
Thanks for checking the BCP language. Hadn't occurred to me that it had
anything close to an 'urgency' tone. Yes, we should use exactly the
same text here, IMO.
My main concern is that the summary communicate both an imperative to
report and a directive that it be done real soon.
d/
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
On 06/11/2012 17:43, Russ Housley wrote: > Brian: > > Jorge has reviewed this text. He says that the current text and this > proposed text are both summaries. Both say that it is important to read the > BCP to get all of the details. OK, good. On reflection my feeling is that we definitely need the introductory paragraph stressing the disclosure requirement, but I remain bothered by taking out all the details. I understand there is a problem of attention span, but there are not really all that many words in the current version. Brian > Russ > > > On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:25 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> I don't much like the change in approach. I think it will be too easy >> to brush off; the current approach has enough substance that people >> who brush it off put themselves in a very weak position. >> >> The old text was written with legal advice. What does counsel say >> about the new proposal? >> >> Regards >> Brian Carpenter >> Cell phone during IETF85: +1 847 219 0880 >> >> On 06/11/2012 15:00, IETF Chair wrote: >>> The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text. Please review >>> and comment. >>> >>> Russ >>> >>> >>> >>> === Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text === >>> >>> Note Well >>> >>> This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and >>> doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in >>> BCP 79; please read it carefully. >>> >>> The brief summary: >>> - By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes. >>> - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write, >>>say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent >>>applications, you need to disclose that fact. >>> - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and >>> publicly archived. >>> >>> For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or >>> review BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the >>> Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on >>> Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF). > >
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
Stephan: Based on the number of late disclosures that are occurring, it is clear to us that we need to use very plain language to explain the responsibilities to participants. Russ On Nov 6, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote: > Hi, > Russ, can you explain why the IESG considers it necessary to tinker with > the Note Well? > As for the substance, I don't like the text for two reasons that can be > found inline. > Stephan > > On 11.6.2012 10:00 , "IETF Chair" wrote: > >> The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text. Please review >> and comment. >> >> Russ >> >> >> >> === Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text === >> >> Note Well >> >> This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and >> doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in >> BCP 79; please read it carefully. >> >> The brief summary: >> - By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes. >> - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write, >> say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent >> applications, you need to disclose that fact. > > 1) I'm not in favor of this formulation because it can be read to impose a > stronger disclosure obligation on a participant than BCP 79. > Specifically, as Lars has already pointed out and according to BCP 79, I'm > not "needed" to disclose a patent I'm reasonably and personally aware of > that reads on a document of mine, if that patent is assigned to someone > else but myself and my sponsor/employer, ... For good reasons, BCP 79 does > not require third party disclosures. I hope that the (few) added words > can be accommodated. > 2) On the other hand, the issue of timeliness is not covered at all (as > others have already pointed out.) > > I'm especially worried of point 1, which can be seen as a policy change > through the back door. If, based on this hypothetical Note Well, we would > end up with an IETF disclosure culture in which third party disclosures > would become the norm rather than an exception, we could well end up with > a brain drain especially from folks not quite as senior in their > respective company hierarchy to have the leeway to ignore company guidance > about patents. > > >> - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and >> publicly archived. >> >> For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or >> review BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the >> Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on >> Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF). > >
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
On 11/6/2012 2:01 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: but I remain bothered by taking out all the details. I understand there is a problem of attention span, but there are not really all that many words in the current version. Simple human factors: You cannot expect anyone to process a mass of text from a slide and develop useful understanding, nevermind take required action. Making a useful slide requires synthesizing it to show only the essential information. That's what I understand the current excise to be and it is exactly the right thing to do. The slide we show should have a very terse statement of the topic, the reader's obligations and where to go to find out more. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 11/6/2012 12:38 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:25
> AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > { the directive here is remarkably soft. much too soft, IMO. a
> > > sentence structure that's a bit too complicated. so...}
> > >
> > > A contribution by you consists of anything you write, say or
> > > discuss in any IETF context. If you are aware that any
> > > contribution you make is covered by
> > > a patent or a patent application, you are REQUIRED to disclose
> > > that fact IMMEDIATELY.
> > >
> >
> > I note that this is not the same language as is in BCP 79, which
> > says: " as soon as reasonably possible " instead of IMMEDIATELY. I
> > don't believe the NOTE WELL should disagree with the BCP on that
> > point.
>
> Thanks for checking the BCP language. Hadn't occurred to me that it had
> anything close to an 'urgency' tone. Yes, we should use exactly the same text
> here, IMO.
>
> My main concern is that the summary communicate both an imperative to report
> and a directive that it be done real soon.
I agree with real soon, but I think there may be times when the disclosure
needs to be approved by coporate legal folks, so I think something like:
as soon as legally permitted
implies immediacy but ackowledges real world constraints.
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
On 06/11/2012 19:30, Dave Crocker wrote: > > > On 11/6/2012 2:01 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> but I remain bothered by taking >> out all the details. I understand there is a problem of attention span, >> but there are not really all that many words in the current version. > > > Simple human factors: > >You cannot expect anyone to process a mass of text from a slide and > develop useful understanding, nevermind take required action. > > > Making a useful slide requires synthesizing it to show only the > essential information. That's what I understand the current excise to > be and it is exactly the right thing to do. > > The slide we show should have a very terse statement of the topic, the > reader's obligations and where to go to find out more. The slide, yes. But there is the version you see on line, where I think the details are appropriate. Brian
RE: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
> -Original Message- > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > IETF Chair > > === Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text === > > - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and >publicly archived. > [WEG] I might suggest a small tweak (in brackets below) to this part of the text given some of the previous discussions around blue sheets/privacy and documenting people's participation in IETF potentially against their will: - You understand that meetings [and therefore your participation in them] might be recorded, broadcast, and publicly archived. I think this makes things a little more explicit in a way that may be helpful to those who are less familiar with IETF meetings. Otherwise, consider this a +1 to comments supporting simplification of the Note Well text to make it a more effective summary. Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
Way too simple, straightforward, and easy to understand. Can't we play lawyer-on-the-list and make it a full page again? -- Sent from my mobile device. Thanks be to lemonade! http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade/ -Original message- From: IETF Chair To: IETF Announce Cc: IETF Sent: Tue, Nov 6, 2012 15:01:59 GMT+00:00 Subject: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text. Please review and comment. Russ === Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text === Note Well This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in BCP 79; please read it carefully. The brief summary: - By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes. - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write, say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent applications, you need to disclose that fact. - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and publicly archived. For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or review BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF).
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
On 11/6/2012 12:46 PM, Eric Burger wrote: Way too simple, straightforward, and easy to understand. Can't we play lawyer-on-the-list and make it a full page again? -- Sent from my mobile device. Thanks be to lemonade! http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade/ -Original message- *From: *IETF Chair * To: *IETF Announce * Cc: *IETF * Sent: *Tue, Nov 6, 2012 15:01:59 GMT+00:00* Subject: *IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text. Please review and comment. Russ === Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text === Note Well This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in BCP 79; please read it carefully. The brief summary: - By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes. - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write, say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent applications, you need to disclose that fact. There is no penalty for NOT DISCLOSING and that is the issue. - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and publicly archived. So this is the Privacy Waiver Statement. For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or review BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF). -- Regards TSG "Ex-Cruce-Leo" //Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > > Not being a lawyer, I can't comment on the legal details of IPR cases. What I > am looking at is the understandability of a statement. A lawyer that I was > speaking with recently told me that the IETF IPR policy is ambiguous; one > must file IPR statements for standards, but not for informational documents. > We wound up wandering through the details of legal statements, in which I > felt he was working pretty hard to make words stand on their heads. in case anyone wonders one might have been able to read that into RFC 2026 but that was very carefully fixed in the current documents - disclosures are required for ALL contributions Scott
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
Hi Russ, On 11.6.2012 14:01 , "Russ Housley" wrote: >Stephan: > >Based on the number of late disclosures that are occurring, it is clear >to us that we need to use very plain language to explain the >responsibilities to participants. That's an interesting statement. To summarize the (long) message below, I don't think that empirical data supports that there are any significant numbers of disclosures of which it is likely that they are "late". I went through the recent IPR disclosures (July 2012 until present) to check against what documents they have been made. In tabular form: Draft-00: 13 Draft-01: 8 Draft-02: 7 Draft-03: 9 Draft-04 and later drafts: 14 Issued RFCs: 4 3rd party disclosures: 15 The 3rd party disclosures obviously are irrelevant here, as there is no disclosure obligation for third party patent rights per BCP 79, and where there is no obligation to disclose there cannot be a late disclosure. Of the four disclosures made against issued RFCs, only one had a match between an inventor's name and the RFC's author list. That one is pledged as RAND-Z. It's undoubtedly late, but I guess that the rightholder attempted to cure that lateness by offering advantageous licensing terms. The other disclosures are RAND, but there is no indication that the companies making the disclosure were contributing, at least not based on matching inventor/author names (or my vague recollection of who said what in meeting rooms at the time). It can well be that the disclosures are completely voluntarily, or that the disclosure requirement was triggered just recently. There are many examples on why this may have happened: one of the authors joint the company in question just recently (which is the case for one of the disclosures), or that the patent changed hands just recently (which was the case in one of the Opus-related declarations that looked, at the first glance, late, but clearly wasn't.) I will also note that one company that made a disclosure is not an IETF regular, and the other has a comparatively small delegation for its size. In conclusion, I don't believe that any of the four cases have been shown to be late disclosures, and my personal feeling is that it is highly likely that none of them is. As for the disclosures against older drafts (04+), they may or may not be late. A disclosure could be made against subject matter that has just recently been included into a draft that already has some history. A disclosure obligation may have been triggered because a participant from a given company, for the first time, decided to comment on the draft. And so on. Based on the information I have, I could not conclude that there is a single late disclosure, although I would consider it likely that there are a few. As for disclosures against drafts 00 through 03, I would argue that most, if not all, of these disclosures are probably timely. A year or so is not an unreasonable time frame for a company to make a disclosure, considering the amount of paperwork and coordination required to do so. It's not only that a company needs to determine, for itself, whether a disclosure is required (draw up a claim chart, have it checked by legal, understand the role of the participant, understand the--rather exotic--IETF patent policy among the other dozens of policies of bodies the company may be involved in), but the company has also to settle on the licensing terms they wish to offer (which can involve standards people, legal, and business folks, and in many cases requires multi-level approval). I have run that process for one of the larger IETF participating companies in the past, and believe me, a year is not unrealistic, even after the policy-understanding-and-advocating phase is behind that company. As our policy does NOT specify another timeframe, I don't think that an argument to the contrary is bearing as much weight as the procedural argument made here. (Yes, when analyzing the drafts I have been sloppy in not distinguishing between WG and individual drafts. I don't think that would change the picture significantly.) So, to summarize, out of the 60 or so non-third-party disclosures that have been made over the last 4+ months, only "a few" may or may not be late; the rest almost certainly is not. Also, I have not seen a trend going towards late disclosures. Quite contrary, I have seen a trend towards early disclosures. I do not believe that, based on this data, there is a need to change the Note Well. If you folks still think a change is needed, then at least do not make a change in such a way that the new Note Well does not correctly interpret the policy we have. The way to fix the "timeliness" of disclosures is to change BCP 79, by adding a definition of timeliness, preferably a hard one (six months or something like this). Stephan > >Russ > > >On Nov 6, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote: > >> Hi, >> Russ, can you explain why the IESG considers it necessary to tinker wi
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
On 11.6.2012 16:17 , "Scott O Bradner" wrote: > >On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >> >> Not being a lawyer, I can't comment on the legal details of IPR cases. >>What I am looking at is the understandability of a statement. A lawyer >>that I was speaking with recently told me that the IETF IPR policy is >>ambiguous; one must file IPR statements for standards, but not for >>informational documents. We wound up wandering through the details of >>legal statements, in which I felt he was working pretty hard to make >>words stand on their heads. > >in case anyone wonders > >one might have been able to read that into RFC 2026 but that was very >carefully fixed >in the current documents - disclosures are required for ALL contributions ALL IETF contributions. NOT all contributions to the RFC editor, and not all RFCs. (Which is of a certain relevance given, for example, the VP8 codec definition RFC) And, only if the IPR in question is yours or your employer's. Stephan > >Scott
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Stephan Wenger wrote: So, to summarize, out of the 60 or so non-third-party disclosures that have been made over the last 4+ months, only "a few" may or may not be late; the rest almost certainly is not. Do we have a list of known IPR for which no disclosure was filed whatsoever (a.k.a. very very very late or possible never filing on purpose) ? Without that information, I don't think we can judge how well the Note Well is working currently. Paul
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
On 11.6.2012 17:17 , "Paul Wouters" wrote: >On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Stephan Wenger wrote: > >> So, to summarize, out of the 60 or so non-third-party disclosures that >> have been made over the last 4+ months, only "a few" may or may not be >> late; the rest almost certainly is not. > >Do we have a list of known IPR for which no disclosure was filed >whatsoever (a.k.a. very very very late or possible never filing on >purpose) ? Without that information, I don't think we can judge how >well the Note Well is working currently. Obviously, I do not have such information. Let me return the favor: do you know how much better a shorter, albeit badly aligned with policy, Note Well would work? Stephan > >Paul >
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
correct - except that the IRTF has adopted the same disclosure requirements Scott On Nov 6, 2012, at 4:56 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote: > > > On 11.6.2012 16:17 , "Scott O Bradner" wrote: > >> >> On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: >>> >>> Not being a lawyer, I can't comment on the legal details of IPR cases. >>> What I am looking at is the understandability of a statement. A lawyer >>> that I was speaking with recently told me that the IETF IPR policy is >>> ambiguous; one must file IPR statements for standards, but not for >>> informational documents. We wound up wandering through the details of >>> legal statements, in which I felt he was working pretty hard to make >>> words stand on their heads. >> >> in case anyone wonders >> >> one might have been able to read that into RFC 2026 but that was very >> carefully fixed >> in the current documents - disclosures are required for ALL contributions > > ALL IETF contributions. NOT all contributions to the RFC editor, and not > all RFCs. (Which is of a certain relevance given, for example, the VP8 > codec definition RFC) > > And, only if the IPR in question is yours or your employer's. > > Stephan > >> >> Scott > >
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
On 11/6/2012 1:47 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote: Hi Russ, On 11.6.2012 14:01 , "Russ Housley" wrote: This isnt complex - if there is a fraud here lets let the FTC deal with it. That is how to keep our hands clean. So will the Chair ask the IETF Counsel to formally contact the FTC to ask them to review this matter. Then its in the FTC's lap and there is no issue for us to worry about. Todd Stephan: Based on the number of late disclosures that are occurring, it is clear to us that we need to use very plain language to explain the responsibilities to participants. That's an interesting statement. To summarize the (long) message below, I don't think that empirical data supports that there are any significant numbers of disclosures of which it is likely that they are "late". I went through the recent IPR disclosures (July 2012 until present) to check against what documents they have been made. In tabular form: Draft-00: 13 Draft-01: 8 Draft-02: 7 Draft-03: 9 Draft-04 and later drafts: 14 Issued RFCs: 4 3rd party disclosures: 15 The 3rd party disclosures obviously are irrelevant here, as there is no disclosure obligation for third party patent rights per BCP 79, and where there is no obligation to disclose there cannot be a late disclosure. Of the four disclosures made against issued RFCs, only one had a match between an inventor's name and the RFC's author list. That one is pledged as RAND-Z. It's undoubtedly late, but I guess that the rightholder attempted to cure that lateness by offering advantageous licensing terms. The other disclosures are RAND, but there is no indication that the companies making the disclosure were contributing, at least not based on matching inventor/author names (or my vague recollection of who said what in meeting rooms at the time). It can well be that the disclosures are completely voluntarily, or that the disclosure requirement was triggered just recently. There are many examples on why this may have happened: one of the authors joint the company in question just recently (which is the case for one of the disclosures), or that the patent changed hands just recently (which was the case in one of the Opus-related declarations that looked, at the first glance, late, but clearly wasn't.) I will also note that one company that made a disclosure is not an IETF regular, and the other has a comparatively small delegation for its size. In conclusion, I don't believe that any of the four cases have been shown to be late disclosures, and my personal feeling is that it is highly likely that none of them is. As for the disclosures against older drafts (04+), they may or may not be late. A disclosure could be made against subject matter that has just recently been included into a draft that already has some history. A disclosure obligation may have been triggered because a participant from a given company, for the first time, decided to comment on the draft. And so on. Based on the information I have, I could not conclude that there is a single late disclosure, although I would consider it likely that there are a few. As for disclosures against drafts 00 through 03, I would argue that most, if not all, of these disclosures are probably timely. A year or so is not an unreasonable time frame for a company to make a disclosure, considering the amount of paperwork and coordination required to do so. It's not only that a company needs to determine, for itself, whether a disclosure is required (draw up a claim chart, have it checked by legal, understand the role of the participant, understand the--rather exotic--IETF patent policy among the other dozens of policies of bodies the company may be involved in), but the company has also to settle on the licensing terms they wish to offer (which can involve standards people, legal, and business folks, and in many cases requires multi-level approval). I have run that process for one of the larger IETF participating companies in the past, and believe me, a year is not unrealistic, even after the policy-understanding-and-advocating phase is behind that company. As our policy does NOT specify another timeframe, I don't think that an argument to the contrary is bearing as much weight as the procedural argument made here. (Yes, when analyzing the drafts I have been sloppy in not distinguishing between WG and individual drafts. I don't think that would change the picture significantly.) So, to summarize, out of the 60 or so non-third-party disclosures that have been made over the last 4+ months, only "a few" may or may not be late; the rest almost certainly is not. Also, I have not seen a trend going towards late disclosures. Quite contrary, I have seen a trend towards early disclosures. I do not believe that, based on this data, there is a need to change the Note Well. If you folks still think a change is needed, then at least do not make a change in such a way that the new Note Well does not correctly interpret t
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
Stephan: >> Based on the number of late disclosures that are occurring, it is clear >> to us that we need to use very plain language to explain the >> responsibilities to participants. > > That's an interesting statement. To summarize the (long) message below, I > don't think that empirical data supports that there are any significant > numbers of disclosures of which it is likely that they are "late". If the disclosure is made after the document completes WG Last Call, then it is late in the IETF standards process. When the disclosure comes after this point in the process, then we need to loop back and redo some steps. Russ
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
I do not argue that sooner is not better w/r to IP disclosures, however see practical data at ETSI described at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1912198 Assessing IPR Disclosure Within Standard Setting: An ICT Case Study November 2011 Anne Layne-Farrar Russ, w/r to timing of disclosures is a "late" disclosure defined anywhere in procedures as stated: "If the disclosure is made after the document completes WG Last Call, then it is late in the IETF standards process" clip from study Specifically, I take an empirical look at the timing of patent disclosures within the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, the body responsible for some of the world's most prevalent mobile telephony standards. I find that most members officially disclose their potentially relevant patents after the standard was published, and sometimes considerably so. On the other hand, I also find that the delay in declaring patents to ETSI standards has been shrinking over time, with disclosures occurring closer to (although for the most part still after) the standard publication date for more recent standard generations as compared to earlier ones. George T. Willingmyre, P.E. President, GTW Associates Spencerville, MD USA 20868 301.421.4138 www.gtwassociates.com - Original Message - From: "Russ Housley" To: "Stephan Wenger" Cc: "IETF" Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 6:30 PM Subject: Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL Stephan: >> Based on the number of late disclosures that are occurring, it is clear >> to us that we need to use very plain language to explain the >> responsibilities to participants. > > That's an interesting statement. To summarize the (long) message below, I > don't think that empirical data supports that there are any significant > numbers of disclosures of which it is likely that they are "late". If the disclosure is made after the document completes WG Last Call, then it is late in the IETF standards process. When the disclosure comes after this point in the process, then we need to loop back and redo some steps. Russ
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
let's be simple here. 'late' would seem to be any time after there was a reasonable expectation that you knew there was a document on which there was ipr. randy
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
It is not so simple. BTW, this is not legal opinion, rather experience The phrase "reasonable expectation" is fraught with difficulty both about whether a contribute knew about IP or did not know or should reasonably have known and whether he/she believed any such IP would be "reasonably expected" to be essential But my objective in the question what might be "late" was whether IETF may have defined "late" somewhere and the rationale for a new "note well" statement that it was because of recent "late disclosures" I caution against discouraging disclosures even it they are "late" George T. Willingmyre, P.E. President, GTW Associates Spencerville, MD USA 20868 301.421.4138 www.gtwassociates.com - Original Message - From: "Randy Bush" To: "George Willingmyre" Cc: "IETF Disgust" Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 7:30 PM Subject: Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL let's be simple here. 'late' would seem to be any time after there was a reasonable expectation that you knew there was a document on which there was ipr. randy
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
[ my last post on this ] > But my objective in the question what might be "late" was whether IETF > may have defined "late" somewhere we are [supposed to be] professionals of *integrity*. discussion of how far the submarine should be allowed to run before it surfaces are the primrose path. as professionals of integrity, we should not participate in submarine exercises. randy
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
On 07/11/2012 01:23, Randy Bush wrote: > [ my last post on this ] > >> But my objective in the question what might be "late" was whether IETF >> may have defined "late" somewhere > > we are [supposed to be] professionals of *integrity*. discussion of how > far the submarine should be allowed to run before it surfaces are the > primrose path. as professionals of integrity, we should not participate > in submarine exercises. +1 My experience is that, when the disclosure is made by a corporate IPR department on behalf of the actual contributor, there can be at least a couple of months delay. If a draft is at an early stage in the IETF process, that isn't usually catastrophic, but it is a bit uncomfortable. I wonder whether we should encourage an informal warning that an IPR disclosure is in the pipeline, when such a corporate delay is likely. On the other hand, there is sometimes the happy outcome that the corporate IPR people decide that the contribution does not infringe the essential claims, so no disclosure is needed. Brian
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
--On Wednesday, 07 November, 2012 10:23 +0900 Randy Bush wrote: > [ my last post on this ] > >> But my objective in the question what might be "late" was >> whether IETF may have defined "late" somewhere > > we are [supposed to be] professionals of *integrity*. > discussion of how far the submarine should be allowed to run > before it surfaces are the primrose path. as professionals of > integrity, we should not participate in submarine exercises. FWIW, I completely agree with this, while noting three things: (1) If someone decides to try to evade the rules rather than behaving professionally and with integrity, no amount of hair-splitting on our part about how the rules are written will help much. Probably we would just create more loopholes. There are days that it is too bad we can't recall participants for non-professional behavior, but that would almost certainly cause more problems than it would be worth (or would never be used, convincing those who are inclined to misbehave that the misbehavior is ok as long as no one moves to kick them out). (2) The NOTE WELL isn't about the rules -- if someone doesn't like the rules, they need to convince the IESG to reopen the IPR WG. It seems to me that George's question is about the rules, not the NOTE WELL (as are several other comments in the thread). (3) We know how to fix these problems. It involves abandoning the IETF's entire "individual participants" model and replacing it with an organizational model, including explicit, signed, agreements when an organization wants to participate and probably a patent policy that requires specific categories of terms, not just disclosure. I hope we don't go there. Observation on the text: I think that a change to something that reinforces the view that the NOTE WELL is a strong suggestion that there are rules, that they impose requirements, and that people pay attention to them is a move in the right direction. The text we've used for the last few years has contained enough details to leave many people with the impression that it is the rule set and that actually understanding the BCPs is unnecessary except as an added reference/clarification. The final paragraph should, IMO, probably include some variation of the stock "consult your own legal counsel" statement as well as advice to talk with various IETF people. best, john
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
On 11/7/2012 7:10 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 07/11/2012 01:23, Randy Bush wrote: we are [supposed to be] professionals of *integrity*. discussion of how far the submarine should be allowed to run before it surfaces are the primrose path. as professionals of integrity, we should not participate in submarine exercises. ... I wonder whether we should encourage an informal warning that an IPR disclosure is in the pipeline, when such a corporate delay is likely. With my non-attorney's understanding of IPR protection, an 'informal' disclosure to an outside party is still a disclosure. For the scenario being discussed, the delay is specifically to get authorization for /any/ disclosure, with the presumption that none is permitted absent that authorization. As for an assumption of integrity, the motivation for the current effort is caused by a lack of IPR holders' being forthcoming. It doesn't matter whether the problem has been due to lack of understanding, lack of integrity, or something else: the reasonable goal here is to make sure that this fundamental IETF requirement is more clear to more people, sooner. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
--On Wednesday, 07 November, 2012 12:10 + Brian E Carpenter wrote: >... > My experience is that, when the disclosure is made by a > corporate IPR department on behalf of the actual contributor, > there can be at least a couple of months delay. If a draft is > at an early stage in the IETF process, that isn't usually > catastrophic, but it is a bit uncomfortable. > > I wonder whether we should encourage an informal warning that > an IPR disclosure is in the pipeline, when such a corporate > delay is likely. > > On the other hand, there is sometimes the happy outcome that > the corporate IPR people decide that the contribution does not > infringe the essential claims, so no disclosure is needed. I think it would be hard to write rules here for reasons that include the contrast above (and again note this is about the rules, not about the NOTE WELL text). But it would be perfectly consistent with today's rules for a participant to post a disclosure that says "I think there may be an issue here, clarifying corporate statement will follow". That wouldn't stop the "timely" clock because it doesn't contain any substantive information that could be evaluated. I guess that, if I were personally responsible for being sure that a timely disclosure occurred and expected some months of delay, I'd consider such a note to be a professional thing to do, especially since the BCPs are (deliberately) vague and open-ended about exactly what a disclosure has to contain. A WG seeing such a placeholder notice would presumably do absolutely nothing other than remembering to ping the individual and company if things got close to a critical decisions point without any real information being available. I can agree with "encourage", but I don't think any of this requires extra text or rules. best, john
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
On 11.7.2012 07:10 , "Brian E Carpenter" wrote: >On 07/11/2012 01:23, Randy Bush wrote: >> [ my last post on this ] >> >>> But my objective in the question what might be "late" was whether IETF >>> may have defined "late" somewhere >> >> we are [supposed to be] professionals of *integrity*. discussion of how >> far the submarine should be allowed to run before it surfaces are the >> primrose path. as professionals of integrity, we should not participate >> in submarine exercises. > >[...] >On the other hand, there is sometimes the happy outcome that the >corporate IPR people decide that the contribution does not infringe >the essential claims, so no disclosure is needed. In my experience, it happens very often that a corporate IPR department finds that a disclosure is not needed. It is, in most cases, not to the advantage of a rightholder to disclose a patent unless he is undeniably obligated to do so, with the result that IPR departments typically do their homework, claim charts and whatnot. (That also takes time.) OTOH, it is, in many cases, to the advantage of a participant to request a patent to be disclosed, be it because of IETF-integrity, essential patent bonuses, or other motivations. Stephan > >Brian >
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
Stephan Wenger wrote: >... > It is, in most cases, not to the advantage of a rightholder to disclose > a patent unless he is undeniably obligated to do so... This is a really strange statement, at first blush. So I ask Stephan to clarify what he meant to say (before I react to it). -- John Leslie
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
On 11.7.2012 09:57 , "John Leslie" wrote: >Stephan Wenger wrote: >>... >> It is, in most cases, not to the advantage of a rightholder to disclose >> a patent unless he is undeniably obligated to do so... > > This is a really strange statement, at first blush. > > So I ask Stephan to clarify what he meant to say (before I react to >it). The vast majority of non-third-party patent disclosures are made by the rightholder's legal, and not only discloses the patent, but also promises certain licensing terms (most often RAND, RF, or a non-assert promises that has many similarities with an RF license). (This is a shortcut of the official procedure which would require the IETF brass to ask for licensing terms after an disclosure without terms has been made.) Having made such a statement restricts the freedom of business of the rightholder with respect to these patents. Restricting the freedom of business is usually not a useful thing for a business. Further, the mere knowledge of the existence of a patent claim against a specification can derail the inclusion of that technique from the draft. Assuming the technique was proposed not only for the benefit of getting a patent in, but for other motives (which, I hope, is still the case of the vast majority of contributions made to the IETF--I'm not so sure in some other standards bodies :-), having a patent disclosure against it is not to the advantage of the proponent. Of course, the legal folks also have to keep in mind that not disclosing a patent also can have negative consequences if that patent were asserted against the standard later. So they check very carefully whether they are "undeniably required to" make a disclosure, but if they think they are, they also make such a disclosure. Gaming the system by over-declaring (to kill a technology through FUD) or especially under-declaring (in the hopes to get a patented technology in the standard without agreeing to encumbrances) is known to have happened, but it's IMO really not that big an issue any more--mostly, because courts have brought the hammer down on rightholders who tried. Clearer? Stephan > >-- >John Leslie >
RE: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
On 11/6 the IETF Chair proposed the following wording: - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write, say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent applications, you need to disclose that fact. I'm surprised that a standards organization would use the phrase "need to" instead of one of the REQUIRED words typically used in standards. (See http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp14) So how about: - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write, say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent applications, you MUST disclose that fact. Meanwhile, I am enjoying the discussion about the expected timeliness of such REQUIRED disclosures. This is indeed a difficult issue with tradeoffs for IP owners and those who implement IETF standards. In particular, I want to see how IETF balances Stephan Wenger's accurate statement that "[r]estricting the freedom of business [by requiring early disclosures] is usually not a useful thing for a business [that owns IP]" with the corollary that "late disclosures may restrict the freedom of business of every other business." But perhaps, as Stephen also suggests, that hasn't proven to be a real, measurable problem (yet) at IETF? /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Office: 707-485-1242 -Original Message- From: IETF Chair [mailto:ch...@ietf.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 7:01 AM To: IETF Announce Cc: IETF Subject: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text. Please review and comment. Russ === Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text === Note Well This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in BCP 79; please read it carefully. The brief summary: - By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes. - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write, say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent applications, you need to disclose that fact. - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and publicly archived. For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or review BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF).
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
On 11/7/2012 5:33 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote: On 11.7.2012 07:10 , "Brian E Carpenter" wrote: On 07/11/2012 01:23, Randy Bush wrote: [ my last post on this ] But my objective in the question what might be "late" was whether IETF may have defined "late" somewhere we are [supposed to be] professionals of *integrity*. discussion of how far the submarine should be allowed to run before it surfaces are the primrose path. as professionals of integrity, we should not participate in submarine exercises. [...] On the other hand, there is sometimes the happy outcome that the corporate IPR people decide that the contribution does not infringe the essential claims, so no disclosure is needed. In my experience, it happens very often that a corporate IPR department finds that a disclosure is not needed. Agreed - but most of them are predatory and not interested in transparency, something that a GSO must have. It is, in most cases, not to the advantage of a rightholder to disclose a patent unless he is undeniably obligated to do so, with the result that IPR departments typically do their homework, claim charts and whatnot. Unfortunately in an open and transparent forum which has multiple legal parties collaborating on jointly owned and licensed IP this is an issue. (That also takes time.) OTOH, it is, in many cases, to the advantage of a participant to request a patent to be disclosed, be it because of IETF-integrity, essential patent bonuses, or other motivations. Stephan the hiding of IP protections from the community may in fact be a criminal act. It clearly constitutes an intentional fraud if the party who has knowledge of the IP is also withholding it because its to their financial benefit. This is what needs to be addressed by a revision to 78/79 Stephan Brian -- Regards TSG "Ex-Cruce-Leo" //Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
- Original Message - From: "Russ Housley" To: "Brian E Carpenter" Cc: "IETF" Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 5:43 PM Brian: Jorge has reviewed this text. He says that the current text and this proposed text are both summaries. Both say that it is important to read the BCP to get all of the details. Even so, I am surprised that Jorge is ok with this. The new text talks of something which "is covered by patents or patent applications" whereas the RFC talks of 'IPR" or "Intellectual Property Rights": means patent, copyright, utility model, invention registration, database and data rights that may Cover an Implementing Technology, whether such rights arise from a registration or renewal thereof, or an application therefore, in each case anywhere in the world' and the two are different. Quite often now I see a chair calling explicitly for IPR disclosures and getting a response that the authors know of no patent application, and while I have no reason to suspect that anyone is trying to game the system, it can only be a matter of time before someone spots this loophole and does. There have been a number of strangely late declarations of IPR in the past few years, which have attracted comment, but most of which have never seem to be satisfactorily explained which makes me think we need to be more rigorous, more formal, more challenging, in this matter, not watering down our words. Tom Petch Russ On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:25 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I don't much like the change in approach. I think it will be too easy > to brush off; the current approach has enough substance that people > who brush it off put themselves in a very weak position. > > The old text was written with legal advice. What does counsel say > about the new proposal? > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > Cell phone during IETF85: +1 847 219 0880 > > On 06/11/2012 15:00, IETF Chair wrote: >> The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text. Please review and comment. >> >> Russ >> >> >> >> === Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text === >> >> Note Well >> >> This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and >> doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in >> BCP 79; please read it carefully. >> >> The brief summary: >> - By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes. >> - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write, >>say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent >>applications, you need to disclose that fact. >> - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and >> publicly archived. >> >> For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or >> review BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the >> Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on >> Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF).
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
On 11/7/2012 1:11 PM, t.p. wrote: - Original Message - From: "Russ Housley" To: "Brian E Carpenter" Cc: "IETF" Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 5:43 PM Brian: Jorge has reviewed this text. He says that the current text and this proposed text are both summaries. Both say that it is important to read the BCP to get all of the details. Even so, I am surprised that Jorge is ok with this. The new text talks of something which "is covered by patents or patent applications" whereas the RFC talks of 'IPR" or "Intellectual Property Rights": means patent, copyright, utility model, invention registration, database and data rights that may Cover an Implementing Technology, whether such rights arise from a registration or renewal thereof, or an application therefore, in each case anywhere in the world' and the two are different. Quite often now I see a chair calling explicitly for IPR disclosures and getting a response that the authors know of no patent application, and while I have no reason to suspect that anyone is trying to game the system, it can only be a matter of time before someone spots this loophole and does. There have been a number of strangely late declarations of IPR in the past few years, which have attracted comment, but most of which have never seem to be satisfactorily explained which makes me think we need to be more rigorous, more formal, more challenging, in this matter, not watering down our words. Tom Petch Tom question for you - apparently the patent affecting the newly proposed NEA standard was filed according to Mssr. Farrel in 2004 - so what then is reasonable about the disclosure period? The issue is simple - the process currently has so much wiggle room in it that these types of things happen - so lets eliminate the wiggle room completely. This would take new get-tough language on patent disclosure and the like as to what happens to an IETF effort when a submarine IP event occurs as well. Todd Russ On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:25 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: I don't much like the change in approach. I think it will be too easy to brush off; the current approach has enough substance that people who brush it off put themselves in a very weak position. The old text was written with legal advice. What does counsel say about the new proposal? Regards Brian Carpenter Cell phone during IETF85: +1 847 219 0880 On 06/11/2012 15:00, IETF Chair wrote: The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text. Please review and comment. Russ === Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text === Note Well This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in BCP 79; please read it carefully. The brief summary: - By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes. - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write, say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent applications, you need to disclose that fact. - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and publicly archived. For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or review BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF). -- Regards TSG "Ex-Cruce-Leo" //Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
Stephan Wenger wrote: >... > > Clearer? Much clearer. Thank you! > On 11.7.2012 09:57 , "John Leslie" wrote: >>Stephan Wenger wrote: >>>... >>> It is, in most cases, not to the advantage of a rightholder to disclose >>> a patent unless he is undeniably obligated to do so... >> >> This is a really strange statement, at first blush. > > The vast majority of non-third-party patent disclosures are made by the > rightholder's legal, and not only discloses the patent, but also promises > certain licensing terms (most often RAND, RF, or a non-assert promises > that has many similarities with an RF license). Indeed, they mostly do include something about licensing terms -- without these, it would be very difficult to evaluate the impact of the IPR on deployment. We are always glad to see these. > (This is a shortcut of the official procedure which would require the > IETF brass to ask for licensing terms after an disclosure without > terms has been made.) Actually no. There is no "IETF brass" and there is no requirement to have licensing terms: they merely make things easier (and I do know of cases where a WGC "suggested" amending an IPR disclosure to include these). > Having made such a statement restricts the freedom of business of the > rightholder with respect to these patents. Technically true, certainly... > Restricting the freedom of business is usually not a useful thing for > a business. Not true. Businesses enter _many_ contracts which restrict their "freedom" but increase their profitability. > Further, the mere knowledge of the existence of a patent claim against a > specification can derail the inclusion of that technique from the draft. Good point! In too many cases, the patent system is "damage" that we feel a need to "route around". :^( > Assuming the technique was proposed not only for the benefit of getting a > patent in, but for other motives (which, I hope, is still the case of the > vast majority of contributions made to the IETF--I'm not so sure in some > other standards bodies :-), having a patent disclosure against it is not > to the advantage of the proponent. That rather depends upon the _content_ of the disclosure. A disclosure without even a hint of licensing terms definitely hurts the chances of a particular technology. But I have seen disclosures which _help_ the chances of the technology. > Of course, the legal folks also have to keep in mind that not disclosing a > patent also can have negative consequences if that patent were asserted > against the standard later. Yes! Fortunately, courts recognize certain patents as "damage" and help us route around them. ;^) > So they check very carefully whether they are "undeniably required to" > make a disclosure, but if they think they are, they also make such a > disclosure. "undeniably required to" is very unfortunate wording. There is no such thing as a requirement you can't find _some_ lawyer to argue against, for a price... Legal departments _do_ try to balance the risks of losing rights due to a failure-to-disclose against the risk of losing licensing revenue. This is _not_ helpful to our process!!! > Gaming the system by over-declaring (to kill a technology through FUD) or > especially under-declaring (in the hopes to get a patented technology in > the standard without agreeing to encumbrances) is known to have happened, > but it's IMO really not that big an issue any more--mostly, because courts > have brought the hammer down on rightholders who tried. There are many more cases (of both) where courts have not yet "punished" the over-declaring/under-declaring. :^( The "late-declaration" problem, as viewed by the IESG, stems from declarations received _after_ an IETF-wide LastCall has been issued. IMHO the individual members are bothered by delays shorter than that, but don't consider those to be issues for the IESG. There (alas!) are cases where the IETF participant doesn't realize the IPR issue exists until IETF LastCall is issued. But the perceived "normal" case is one where the IETF participant knows of the IPR before an I-D is even accepted as a WG draft -- but rather than disclosing him/herself, asks the legal department of his/her employer to make the disclosure, and considers that to fully satisfy the obligation. IMHO, the IPR-process discussions this week are mainly an attempt to get across to folks that passing the buck does _not_ satisfy your obligation: the obligation attaches to the IETF participant, not the employer; and failure to keep prodding the legal department fails the "as soon as reasonably possible" test. -- John Leslie
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
is "...an IETF context..." well defined? /bill On 11/6/12, IETF Chair wrote: > The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text. Please review and > comment. > > Russ > > > > === Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text === > > Note Well > > This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and > doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in > BCP 79; please read it carefully. > > The brief summary: > - By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes. > - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you write, > say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent > applications, you need to disclose that fact. > - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and >publicly archived. > > For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or > review BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the > Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on > Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF).
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
On 11/10/2012 4:18 AM, bill manning wrote: is "...an IETF context..." well defined? For example, is a Bar BOF an IETF context? What about a dinner among some attendees, on their own, during IETF week? What about outside of IETF week? What about a private email exchange by a couple of attendees, about an IETF topic? Outside of IETF week? And these really are questions for an attorney. Sometimes, legal language that is ambiguous is helpful. This isn't one of those times, since it needs to have clarity for average participants. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
RE: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
I think you miss the point of "This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in BCP 79; please read it carefully." That point is: this Note Well is not intended to reproduce the entirety of BCP79. Adrian > -Original Message- > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave > Crocker > Sent: 12 November 2012 16:13 > To: bill manning > Cc: Keio; IETF; IETF Announce > Subject: Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL > > > On 11/10/2012 4:18 AM, bill manning wrote: > > is "...an IETF context..." well defined? > > > For example, is a Bar BOF an IETF context? > > What about a dinner among some attendees, on their own, during IETF week? > > What about outside of IETF week? > > What about a private email exchange by a couple of attendees, about an > IETF topic? Outside of IETF week? > > And these really are questions for an attorney. > > Sometimes, legal language that is ambiguous is helpful. This isn't one > of those times, since it needs to have clarity for average participants. > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL
On 11/12/2012 9:52 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: I think you miss the point of "This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in BCP 79; please read it carefully." as in 1.c of the doc, I believe. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: IESG Considering a Revision to NOTE WELL/ NEA IPR issues...
On 11/6/2012 1:47 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote: Hi Russ, On 11.6.2012 14:01 , "Russ Housley" wrote: *'Sunlight Is the Best Disinfectant'* Sunlight is the best disinfectant," a well-known quote from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, refers to the benefits of openness and transparency. I invoke this quote often as executive director of the NYSSCPA, to illustrate that _*the most credible and respected organizations operate in an atmosphere of avowed openness*_. We should not only accept criticism and suggestions, we should embrace them. If questions from constituents, the public, or the media make leaders or other responsible parties obfuscate, the questions are usually valid and the answers are not. _/*People who feel uncomfortable under the bright light of scrutiny and criticism often have something to hide. */_ http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2003/1203/nv/nv2.htm Todd Stephan:e Based on the number of late disclosures that are occurring, it is clear to us that we need to use very plain language to explain the responsibilities to participants. That's an interesting statement. To summarize the (long) message below, I don't think that empirical data supports that there are any significant numbers of disclosures of which it is likely that they are "late". I went through the recent IPR disclosures (July 2012 until present) to check against what documents they have been made. In tabular form: Draft-00: 13 Draft-01: 8 Draft-02: 7 Draft-03: 9 Draft-04 and later drafts: 14 Issued RFCs: 4 3rd party disclosures: 15 The 3rd party disclosures obviously are irrelevant here, as there is no disclosure obligation for third party patent rights per BCP 79, and where there is no obligation to disclose there cannot be a late disclosure. Of the four disclosures made against issued RFCs, only one had a match between an inventor's name and the RFC's author list. That one is pledged as RAND-Z. It's undoubtedly late, but I guess that the rightholder attempted to cure that lateness by offering advantageous licensing terms. The other disclosures are RAND, but there is no indication that the companies making the disclosure were contributing, at least not based on matching inventor/author names (or my vague recollection of who said what in meeting rooms at the time). It can well be that the disclosures are completely voluntarily, or that the disclosure requirement was triggered just recently. There are many examples on why this may have happened: one of the authors joint the company in question just recently (which is the case for one of the disclosures), or that the patent changed hands just recently (which was the case in one of the Opus-related declarations that looked, at the first glance, late, but clearly wasn't.) I will also note that one company that made a disclosure is not an IETF regular, and the other has a comparatively small delegation for its size. In conclusion, I don't believe that any of the four cases have been shown to be late disclosures, and my personal feeling is that it is highly likely that none of them is. As for the disclosures against older drafts (04+), they may or may not be late. A disclosure could be made against subject matter that has just recently been included into a draft that already has some history. A disclosure obligation may have been triggered because a participant from a given company, for the first time, decided to comment on the draft. And so on. Based on the information I have, I could not conclude that there is a single late disclosure, although I would consider it likely that there are a few. As for disclosures against drafts 00 through 03, I would argue that most, if not all, of these disclosures are probably timely. A year or so is not an unreasonable time frame for a company to make a disclosure, considering the amount of paperwork and coordination required to do so. It's not only that a company needs to determine, for itself, whether a disclosure is required (draw up a claim chart, have it checked by legal, understand the role of the participant, understand the--rather exotic--IETF patent policy among the other dozens of policies of bodies the company may be involved in), but the company has also to settle on the licensing terms they wish to offer (which can involve standards people, legal, and business folks, and in many cases requires multi-level approval). I have run that process for one of the larger IETF participating companies in the past, and believe me, a year is not unrealistic, even after the policy-understanding-and-advocating phase is behind that company. As our policy does NOT specify another timeframe, I don't think that an argument to the contrary is bearing as much weight as the procedural argument made here. (Yes, when analyzing the drafts I have been sloppy in not distinguishing between WG and individual drafts. I don't think that would change the picture significantly.) So, to summarize, out of the 60 or so
