Hi Ivaylo, It is important to point out that IPR 6609 has been updated by IPR 6621 IPR Details - Antoine Delignat-Lavaud's Statement about IPR related to draft-birkholz-cose-cometre-ccf-profile<https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/6621/>.
After review with patent lawyers we have determined that draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs is out of scope for US18/260763 as it only describes a generic format for Merkle Tree Proof. Only draft-birkholz-cose-receipts-ccf-profile<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-birkholz-cose-receipts-ccf-profile/> is in scope for this patent and the IPR has been updated accordingly. Best, Antoine ________________________________ From: Ivaylo Petrov <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 12:34 To: Paul Wouters <[email protected]>; Cose Chairs Wg <[email protected]>; cose <[email protected]> Subject: [COSE] Re: Second WGLC draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs due to IPR Dear all, I'd like to follow up on the previous WGLC announcement regarding draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs. As a reminder, the previous email requested your input on whether the disclosed IPR impacts your support for publication of this document. To facilitate the next steps in this process, I kindly request your response by February 11th (2 weeks from now). Feel free to only reply to the WG chairs. Please indicate whether: * (a) You require additional time to form an opinion. * (b) You have an opinion (please share it). * (c) You do not have an opinion. * (d) You have an alternative proposal for a path forward. Your timely response will be greatly appreciated and will assist us in moving forward. Thank you for your attention to this matter. -- Ivaylo On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 10:15 AM Ivaylo Petrov <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: 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]
