Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com writes:
On 2009-12-01 23:57, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com writes:
Simon Josefsson allegedly wrote on 11/30/2009 10:11 AM:
There is no requirement in the IETF process for organizations to
disclose patents as far as I
Simon Josefsson writes:
Arnt Gulbrandsen a...@gulbrandsen.priv.no writes:
Simon Josefsson writes:
There is no requirement in the IETF process for organizations to
disclose patents as far as I can see. The current approach of only
having people participate, and disclose patents, in the
Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Simon Josefsson writes:
Arnt Gulbrandsen a...@gulbrandsen.priv.no writes:
Simon Josefsson writes:
There is no requirement in the IETF process for organizations to
disclose patents as far as I can see. The current approach of only
having people participate, and
Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com writes:
Simon Josefsson allegedly wrote on 11/30/2009 10:11 AM:
There is no requirement in the IETF process for organizations to
disclose patents as far as I can see. The current approach of only
having people participate, and disclose patents, in the IETF is
On 2009-12-01 23:57, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com writes:
Simon Josefsson allegedly wrote on 11/30/2009 10:11 AM:
There is no requirement in the IETF process for organizations to
disclose patents as far as I can see. The current approach of only
having people
Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com writes:
On 2009-11-24 06:44, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:16:49 -0500
Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Simon Josefsson allegedly wrote on 11/23/2009 5:03 AM:
John-Luc said he is bound by confidentiality obligations
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com writes:
On 2009-11-24 06:44, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:16:49 -0500
Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Simon Josefsson allegedly wrote on 11/23/2009 5:03 AM:
John-Luc said
Simon Josefsson writes:
There is no requirement in the IETF process for organizations to
disclose patents as far as I can see. The current approach of only
having people participate, and disclose patents, in the IETF is easy
to work around by having two persons in an organization doing
Arnt Gulbrandsen a...@gulbrandsen.priv.no writes:
Simon Josefsson writes:
There is no requirement in the IETF process for organizations to
disclose patents as far as I can see. The current approach of only
having people participate, and disclose patents, in the IETF is easy
to work around by
On 2009-12-01 06:03, Thierry Moreau wrote:
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com writes:
On 2009-11-24 06:44, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:16:49 -0500
Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Simon Josefsson allegedly wrote on
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 18:50 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Arnt Gulbrandsen a...@gulbrandsen.priv.no writes:
Simon Josefsson writes:
There is no requirement in the IETF process for organizations to
disclose patents as far as I can see. The current approach of only
having people
Arnt Gulbrandsen [mailto://a...@gulbrandsen.priv.no] writes:
Simon Josefsson writes:
There is no requirement in the IETF process for organizations to
disclose patents as far as I can see. The current approach of only
having people participate, and disclose patents, in the IETF is easy
to
On 2009-11-24 06:44, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:16:49 -0500
Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Simon Josefsson allegedly wrote on 11/23/2009 5:03 AM:
John-Luc said he is bound by confidentiality obligations from his
company, and I think the same applies to most
Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com writes:
John-Luc:
I am sending this note to help you understand the IETF IPR policies;
they are fully described in BCP 79
(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/bcp/bcp79.txt). I hope this note clarifies
the responsibilities of RIM employees (and anyone else) who
On Mon Nov 23 10:03:25 2009, Simon Josefsson wrote:
John-Luc said he is bound by confidentiality obligations from his
company, and I think the same applies to most employees of larger
organizations. There is nothing explicit in BCP 79 to protect
against
this apparent conflict of interest, or
Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net writes:
On Mon Nov 23 10:03:25 2009, Simon Josefsson wrote:
John-Luc said he is bound by confidentiality obligations from his
company, and I think the same applies to most employees of larger
organizations. There is nothing explicit in BCP 79 to protect
Simon Josefsson allegedly wrote on 11/23/2009 5:03 AM:
John-Luc said he is bound by confidentiality obligations from his
company, and I think the same applies to most employees of larger
organizations. There is nothing explicit in BCP 79 to protect against
this apparent conflict of interest,
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:16:49 -0500
Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Simon Josefsson allegedly wrote on 11/23/2009 5:03 AM:
John-Luc said he is bound by confidentiality obligations from his
company, and I think the same applies to most employees of larger
organizations. There is
I don't see the issue as being whether the decision would have been
different, the rules were not followed. Rescinding the decision is
certainly appropriate.
It would be useful to know whether any other parties have implemented
this spec to date. If so the situation is rather different since the
This was the case in the past. Recently one of my lawyers suggested
that this is not necessarily the case at present. The USPTO appears to
be (slowly) getting its act together.
While USPTO behavior has been rent-seeking in recent years, preferring
to issue stupid patents rather than risk being
Russ Housley wrote:
John-Luc:
I am sending this note to help you understand the IETF IPR policies;
they are fully described in BCP 79
(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/bcp/bcp79.txt). I hope this note clarifies
the responsibilities of RIM employees (and anyone else) who
participate in IETF.
IETF
John-Luc:
I am sending this note to help you understand the IETF IPR policies;
they are fully described in BCP 79
(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/bcp/bcp79.txt). I hope this note clarifies
the responsibilities of RIM employees (and anyone else) who
participate in IETF.
IETF participants engage
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
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
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
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
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
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
http://www.google.com/patents?id=Mk7GEBAJ
and the
How about the IESG simply rescinds its decision in this week's
meeting? I don't see any need for an appeal; if there's a
prima facie violation of the disclosure rules, it's just a
management item. Much less bother than an appeal.
Of course, the rescission would be subject to appeal, but
that's
32 matches
Mail list logo
