Dear all, In light of https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/6609/, please answer the following question in relation to draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs [0].
Does this IPR disclosure impact your support for publication of this document? [0]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs-07 Before answering the question above, please read through the following quote [1] from another working group that you might find helpful in relation to the process regarding Intelectual property Rights at the IETF. [1]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/-8jgb0jpEOpPjfJyfkIcVcpx5F0/ Note that, in the IETF, patent claims are usually called "IPR" ("Intellectual Property Rights"), independent of whether there are any actual rights or what "IPR" may apply beyond patent claims (for instance, there are usually copright claims or similar droit d'auteur/Urheberrecht on the text of a draft). So, focusing on patent claims, before answering the WGLC, PLEASE REVIEW the IETF procedures for dealing with such claims, as recorded in BCP 79 (currently RFC 8179 [2]). [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8179 In general, in the IETF it is up to a WG to consider the impact of patent claims on a technology and to decide whether a potentially encumbered technology should be agreed on or whether alternative technologies should be pursued. (IESG members may be interested in a WG's record of making this decision, but the rules notably do not put them in a position to second-guess that decision. Neither are the WG chairs, which however do need to gauge the WG consensus on a particular decision.) Please note that one weird aspect of the patent law that governs several of the jurisdictions under which members of the WG operate is that plausibly having knowledge about a patent claim can create additional liability for those WG members (as individuals or for their companies). We therefore generally DO NOT discuss details of patent claims on WG mailing lists. However, WG members will need to factor in information about patent claims when making the decision whether to be in favor of a document advancing after a WG call. They may need to obtain some of the necessary input from separate sources, such as corporate lawyers, which may require additional time -- <redacted due to irrelevance>. Your lawyers may be interested in whether the patent claims actually "read" on the specification under consideration (i.e., claim patent rights on some aspect of it) and whether that specific claim is sufficiently likely to be enforceable to be of interest for the decision of the organization. Note that this is a legal decision, and as such not subject to a logic that engineers might understand. There is therefore little reason to fall into armchair lawyering on the mailing list, and, as I mentioned, that would likely be detrimental for some WG members (having caused WG members to unsubscribe and cease their activities in a WG before). Also, you definitely do not want to appear to give legal advice. Thank you -- Ivaylo on behave of the COSE chairs P.S: This email was drafted after a discussion with my co-chair and feedback on https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wgchairs/?gbt=1&index=GlwPylkPBsHgffuJXEr-_ZhlxFg .
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
