Cullen Jennings wrote:
On October 8, the IESG approved the registration of
application/3gpp-ims+xml Media Type. On Nov 2, RIM filed an IPR
disclosure related to this at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1219/
The associated patent, filed Oct 2008, is at
Cullen Jennings wrote:
I'd like to draw peoples attention to the IPR disclosure
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1213
on
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn
The associated patent seems to be
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=O7qXEBAJ
Let me point out Mr.
FWIW, I agree with Brian. Pulling this (waiting until the IESG
approves and only then filing the disclosure) on a media type
registration seems particularly egregious but is, in any event,
exactly the type of situation the IPR rules are intended to
prevent. Like him, I believe that the IESG can
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 19:02 -0700, Cullen Jennings wrote:
On October 8, the IESG approved the registration of application/3gpp-
ims+xml Media Type. On Nov 2, RIM filed an IPR disclosure related to
this at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1219/
The associated patent, filed Oct 2008, is
Julian Reschke wrote:
...
I had occasion to coordinate the transfer of responsibility from the
IETF to IEEE for some work, and had to spend significant effort
working through the copyright issues and the migration issues
(RFC4663). The work being transferred in RFC4663 is an IETF standard,
Since people thought I was merely being amusing, instead of also
intending to make a point, let me rephrase in a dry, dull, and
serious tone, so I'm no longer told it was very amusing, but not
much help.
There exist a few protocols based around mDNS and DNS-SD, in
particular in
FWIW, I agree with Brian. Pulling this (waiting until the IESG
approves and only then filing the disclosure) on a media type
registration seems particularly egregious but is, in any event,
exactly the type of situation the IPR rules are intended to
prevent. Like him, I believe that the IESG
Hi,
I would suggest to handle this issue calmly from here on.
In this specific case, even assuming validity of the patent, the rightholder
may already have a enforceability problem based on what I also perceive as a
clear IETF process violation. As the very minimum, if the patent were ever
As described in BCP 101 (RFC 4071) and BCP 113 (RFC 4333),
the IESG and the IAB each select one person for a two-year IAOC
term in alternate years. This year, the IESG will select one person
for a term beginning in March 2010.
Following the call for nominations, which ran through 16 November
Rescinding RFCs-to-be only based on late disclosures may set
a precedence for the future we may not like.
Doing so would provide an incentive for the patent holder to delay disclosure
until after the RFC is issued.
IETF lacks a censure policy for such violations. Maybe we need one.
-d
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 10:51:16AM -0800, Stephan Wenger wrote:
The mechanisms to challenge the validity of a patent depend on the
legislation. In the US, one example is a request for re-examination. A
good foundation for such a request would be the presence of Prior Art not
considered
Hi Ted,
I believe you are right.
Let me further add a) it's IMO foolish to attempt to force re-examination
without a *good* patent lawyer (even if it's allowed in the US), and b)
that, AFAIK, this aspect of the perceived brokenness of the patent system is
not local to the US.
Stephan
On
Dear all,
With regard to the recent discussion regarding RIM's recent IPR
disclosures, I understand the community's concerns regarding the
timeliness of the disclosure. As employees of companies we are bound by
confidentiality obligations and, in addition, cannot always control our
company's
Dear all,
I understand the community’s concerns regarding the timeliness of the
disclosure. As I’m sure everyone can understand, as employees of
companies we are bound by confidentiality obligations and, in
addition, cannot always control our company’s internal processes. The
community’s
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 07:38:26PM -0500, Michael Montemurro wrote:
Dear all,
I understand the community’s concerns regarding the timeliness of the
disclosure. As I’m sure everyone can understand, as employees of
companies we are bound by confidentiality obligations and, in
addition,
Hi -
From: Michael Montemurro montemurro.mich...@gmail.com
To: IETF-Discussion list ietf@ietf.org; Cullen Jennings
flu...@cisco.com
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: RIM patents a URN (and ignores IETF IPR rules)
...
My company
has asked for your patience while they
In my company's case, we file IPR disclosures on patent applications
as well as allowed claims. That is consistent with our corporate
policy of encouraging innovation and patenting defensively; our
disclosures as a rule include the fact that we do not seek monetary
reward unless another
With regard to the recent discussion on the IETF-Discussion list
regarding RIM's recent IPR disclosures, I understand the community's
concerns regarding the timeliness of the disclosure. As I'm sure
everyone can understand, as employees of companies we are bound by
confidentiality obligations
Hi -
From: Andrew Allen aal...@rim.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:11 PM
Subject: Regarding RIM's recent IPR disclosures
...
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information, privileged material (including material protected by the
Randy,
It is a standard footer attached automatically by many attorney's email systems
to all outgoing mail.
d/
Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -
From: Andrew Allen aal...@rim.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:11 PM
Subject: Regarding RIM's recent IPR disclosures
...
The associated patent, filed Oct 2008, is at
http://www.google.com/patents?id=Mk7GEBAJ
and the related draft is
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bakker-sipping-3gpp-ims-xml-body-handling
Quite aside from the question of what the IESG should do about the
registration, my reading of
It is a standard footer attached automatically by many attorney's
email systems to all outgoing mail.
Many non-attorneys' mail, too, as in this case.
Yes, it's silly: as far as I can tell, confidentiality claims like
this are entirely unenforcable in the US except in a few arcane
situations that
Total of 97 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Nov 20 00:53:02 EST 2009
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
11.34% | 11 | 11.59% |70399 | brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
6.19% |6 | 5.95% |36116 |
Is every single RIM employee going to send this to the list?
EHL
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew
Allen
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:11 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Regarding RIM's recent IPR disclosures
With regard to the recent
FYI: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg02914.html
On 2009-11-20, at 4:41, Randy Presuhn wrote:
From: Andrew Allen aal...@rim.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 6:11 PM
Subject: Regarding RIM's recent IPR disclosures
...
This transmission
As described in BCP 101 (RFC 4071) and BCP 113 (RFC 4333),
the IESG and the IAB each select one person for a two-year IAOC
term in alternate years. This year, the IESG will select one person
for a term beginning in March 2010.
Following the call for nominations, which ran through 16 November
26 matches
Mail list logo
