Brian E Carpenter writes:
> On 2009-12-01 23:57, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Scott Brim 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
On 2009-12-01 23:57, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Scott Brim 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,
Scott Brim 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 easy to
>> wor
Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> Simon Josefsson writes:
>> Arnt Gulbrandsen 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 p
Simon Josefsson writes:
Arnt Gulbrandsen 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 aroun
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 eas
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 easy to
> work around by having two pers
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 18:50 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Arnt Gulbrandsen 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 disc
On 2009-12-01 06:03, Thierry Moreau wrote:
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Brian E Carpenter writes:
>>
>>
>>> On 2009-11-24 06:44, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>>>
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:16:49 -0500
Scott Brim wrote:
> Simon Josefsson allegedly wrote on 11/23/2009 5:
Arnt Gulbrandsen 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 having two pers
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
differe
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Brian E Carpenter writes:
On 2009-11-24 06:44, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:16:49 -0500
Scott Brim wrote:
Simon Josefsson allegedly wrote on 11/23/2009 5:03 AM:
John-Luc said he is bound by confidentiality obligations from
Brian E Carpenter writes:
> On 2009-11-24 06:44, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:16:49 -0500
>> Scott Brim 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 th
On 2009-11-24 06:44, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:16:49 -0500
> Scott Brim 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
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 sue
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
o
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:16:49 -0500
Scott Brim 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 nothing explicit i
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 interes
Dave Cridland 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
>> against
>> thi
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
Russ Housley 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
> participate in IETF
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 pa
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 as
>> 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
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 11/19/0
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 du
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
asser
> 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
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 20
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 r
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
http://www.google.com/patents?id=Mk7GA
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 ano
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 rel
33 matches
Mail list logo