Subject: Re: RIM patents using a mime body in a message (and ignores IETF IPR rules)

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:55:20 +0100

Simon Josefsson writes:
> Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]> 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 persons in an organization doing 
>>>  different things: one works on specifying and standardizing 
>>>  technology, and the other is working on patenting the technology.
>>
>>  How can you practically avoid the first person knowing about it?
>
> Make sure (through confidentiality agreements) that the second one do 
> not talk with the first? Putting them in different continents helps.

The patent submitter has to be the inventor, so the person who works on 
standardisation has to not talk to the inventor at all for this scheme 
to work. This seems rather far-fetched to me. Not one of my greatest 
worries.

Arnt

---

From: Tobias Gondrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:12:21 +0800

Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> The patent submitter has to be the inventor, so the person who works
> on standardisation has to not talk to the inventor at all for this
> scheme to work. This seems rather far-fetched to me. Not one of my
> greatest worries.

absolutely. And actually at least a few years back, the process was that
you have to obtain acknowledgement from all inventors (by signature) so
it would be virtually impossible to be named on a patent in the US
without knowing it.
Anyway, all not relevant as this case is pretty straight forward.

Tobias

> Arnt
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:57:24 +0100

Scott Brim <[email-masked]> writes:

> Simon Josefsson allegedly wrote on 11/30/2009 10:11 AM:
>> having people participate, and disclose patents, in the IETF is easy to
>> work around by having two persons in an organization doing different
>> things: one works on specifying and standardizing technology, and the
>> other is working on patenting the technology.
>
> Simon, from rfc3979:
>
>    l. "Reasonably and personally known": means something an individual
>       knows personally or, because of the job the individual holds,
>       would reasonably be expected to know.  This wording is used to
>       indicate that an organization cannot purposely keep an individual
>       in the dark about patents or patent applications just to avoid the
>       disclosure requirement.  But this requirement should not be
>       interpreted as requiring the IETF Contributor or participant (or
>       his or her represented organization, if any) to perform a patent
>       search to find applicable IPR.

I don't see how this modifies anything?  The legal obligation is on the
IETF participant, not on the organization.  The organization is not
bound by this text.

/Simon

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:00:06 +1300

> IETF participant, not on the organization.  The organization is not

IANAL. But if the participant is acting as an agent of the employer,
it seems to me that the employer is bound. In any case, you'd have to be
a brave or reckless employee not to assume that to be the case. You'd also
have to be a very obtuse employer to fund your employees to participate
if you didn't like the IETF's rules.

At least, that's how it's worked for the last 12 or 13 years.

    Brian

    Brian

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:19:15 +0100

> if you didn't like the IETF's rules.

Now you are moving the responsibility on to the organizations.  I can't
see how that modify my assertion that the IETF does not have any legal
means to pressure organization to file patent disclosures.  Either the
IETF has a legal ability to apply pressure on organizations, or it does
not.  I don't see why that is a controversial statement.  Nothing in the
IETF history suggests it even wants to have a legal link to
organizations who sends participants to the IETF.  The text in RFC 3979
and other documents suggests strongly that this approach is intentional.

/Simon