Re: RIM patents a URN (and ignores IETF IPR rules)
In this particular case, the patent was published on Jan. 4, 2007, so it's difficult to imagine any valid reason to not have disclosed then. Cheers, Andy On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote: In my company's case, we file IPR disclosures on patent applications as well as allowed claims. That is consistent with our corporate policy of encouraging innovation and patenting defensively; our disclosures as a rule include the fact that we do not seek monetary reward unless another party would rather trade IPR licenses mediated by expensive lawyers than accept a free RFC 1988 license. One of the concerns with filing IPR-laden concepts in a standard without disclosure is that courts have been known to disallow the protections a patent provides when IPR has been disguised in the standards process. The IETF policy of disclosure is there to protect your patent rights, not disrupt them. Your patent attorneys may want to rethink that matter. On Nov 20, 2009, at 9:38 AM, Michael Montemurro wrote: Dear all, I understand the community’s concerns regarding the timeliness of the disclosure. As I’m sure everyone can understand, as employees of companies we are bound by confidentiality obligations and, in addition, cannot always control our company’s internal processes. The community’s concerns have been brought to the attention of my employer and they are in the process of evaluating the concerns. My company has asked for your patience while they take the time to evaluate the concerns and determine if there is an appropriate course of action in this matter to alleviate the concerns of the community. Your understanding is appreciated. Thanks, Mike ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: RIM patents a URN (and ignores IETF IPR rules)
-Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:53 PM To: Michael Montemurro Cc: Cullen Jennings; IETF-Discussion list Subject: Re: RIM patents a URN (and ignores IETF IPR rules) In my company's case, we file IPR disclosures on patent applications as well as allowed claims. That is consistent with our corporate policy of encouraging innovation and patenting defensively; our disclosures as a rule include the fact that we do not seek monetary reward unless another party would rather trade IPR licenses mediated by expensive lawyers than accept a free RFC 1988 license. Fred - this is not only good corporate practice, disclosure of patent applications is unambiguously required by RFC 3977. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: RIM patents a URN (and ignores IETF IPR rules)
-Original Message- From: Contreras, Jorge Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 2:38 PM To: 'Fred Baker'; Michael Montemurro Cc: Cullen Jennings; IETF-Discussion list Subject: RE: RIM patents a URN (and ignores IETF IPR rules) -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:53 PM To: Michael Montemurro Cc: Cullen Jennings; IETF-Discussion list Subject: Re: RIM patents a URN (and ignores IETF IPR rules) In my company's case, we file IPR disclosures on patent applications as well as allowed claims. That is consistent with our corporate policy of encouraging innovation and patenting defensively; our disclosures as a rule include the fact that we do not seek monetary reward unless another party would rather trade IPR licenses mediated by expensive lawyers than accept a free RFC 1988 license. Fred - this is not only good corporate practice, disclosure of patent applications is unambiguously required by RFC 3977. Just to clarify: I was referring to the first part of Fred's paragraph: what's required is disclosing patent applications, not the other corporate policies that Fred's company might adopt. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: RIM patents a URN (and ignores IETF IPR rules)
On Nov 21, 2009, at 4:38 AM, Contreras, Jorge wrote: -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:53 PM To: Michael Montemurro Cc: Cullen Jennings; IETF-Discussion list Subject: Re: RIM patents a URN (and ignores IETF IPR rules) In my company's case, we file IPR disclosures on patent applications as well as allowed claims. That is consistent with our corporate policy of encouraging innovation and patenting defensively; our disclosures as a rule include the fact that we do not seek monetary reward unless another party would rather trade IPR licenses mediated by expensive lawyers than accept a free RFC 1988 license. Fred - this is not only good corporate practice, disclosure of patent applications is unambiguously required by RFC 3977. Of course. But to my small mind, the stronger argument is not the rules say... but the reason the rules say that is ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: RIM patents a URN (and ignores IETF IPR rules)
Cullen Jennings wrote: I'd like to draw peoples attention to the IPR disclosure https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1213 on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn The associated patent seems to be http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=O7qXEBAJ Let me point out Mr. Allen is an author of both and a long time participant in IETF. Seems the 00 draft was from Oct 2006, the patent filed Jun 2005, and it seems we are just getting the IPR disclosure now. I didn't have the time to study the patent/IPR disclosure yet. but ... Given there are many ways to solve this sort of problem, and many of them are less likely to be IPR encumbered, I'd consider the possibility that the IESG should send this to the DISPATCH WG to see if they want to work on finding an appropriate solution to it. What do other people think the IESG should do with this draft? Speaking as an individual participant: I would like for something like this to be standardized. Using DISPATCH WG what to do here seems like a fine idea. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: RIM patents a URN (and ignores IETF IPR rules)
Dear all, I understand the community’s concerns regarding the timeliness of the disclosure. As I’m sure everyone can understand, as employees of companies we are bound by confidentiality obligations and, in addition, cannot always control our company’s internal processes. The community’s concerns have been brought to the attention of my employer and they are in the process of evaluating the concerns. My company has asked for your patience while they take the time to evaluate the concerns and determine if there is an appropriate course of action in this matter to alleviate the concerns of the community. Your understanding is appreciated. Thanks, Mike ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: RIM patents a URN (and ignores IETF IPR rules)
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 07:38:26PM -0500, Michael Montemurro wrote: Dear all, I understand the community’s concerns regarding the timeliness of the disclosure. As I’m sure everyone can understand, as employees of companies we are bound by confidentiality obligations and, in addition, cannot always control our company’s internal processes. The community’s concerns have been brought to the attention of my employer and they are in the process of evaluating the concerns. My company has asked for your patience while they take the time to evaluate the concerns and determine if there is an appropriate course of action in this matter to alleviate the concerns of the community. This is true, but as participants in the IETF, you can (and are expected to) refuse to bring forward specifications for standardization that blatently violate IETF's rules and processes - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: RIM patents a URN (and ignores IETF IPR rules)
Hi - From: Michael Montemurro montemurro.mich...@gmail.com To: IETF-Discussion list ietf@ietf.org; Cullen Jennings flu...@cisco.com Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:38 PM Subject: Re: RIM patents a URN (and ignores IETF IPR rules) ... My company has asked for your patience while they take the time to evaluate the concerns and determine if there is an appropriate course of action in this matter to alleviate the concerns of the community. ... With the long history of Note Well slides and notices, and the claim of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn to be in full conformance with BCP 79, it would seem the time for evaluating an appropriate course of action was some time in the past. This looks really bad to me, and I'm having a hard time figuring out what an innocent explanation for this might be. Randy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: RIM patents a URN (and ignores IETF IPR rules)
In my company's case, we file IPR disclosures on patent applications as well as allowed claims. That is consistent with our corporate policy of encouraging innovation and patenting defensively; our disclosures as a rule include the fact that we do not seek monetary reward unless another party would rather trade IPR licenses mediated by expensive lawyers than accept a free RFC 1988 license. One of the concerns with filing IPR-laden concepts in a standard without disclosure is that courts have been known to disallow the protections a patent provides when IPR has been disguised in the standards process. The IETF policy of disclosure is there to protect your patent rights, not disrupt them. Your patent attorneys may want to rethink that matter. On Nov 20, 2009, at 9:38 AM, Michael Montemurro wrote: Dear all, I understand the community’s concerns regarding the timeliness of the disclosure. As I’m sure everyone can understand, as employees of companies we are bound by confidentiality obligations and, in addition, cannot always control our company’s internal processes. The community’s concerns have been brought to the attention of my employer and they are in the process of evaluating the concerns. My company has asked for your patience while they take the time to evaluate the concerns and determine if there is an appropriate course of action in this matter to alleviate the concerns of the community. Your understanding is appreciated. Thanks, Mike ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RIM patents a URN (and ignores IETF IPR rules)
I'd like to draw peoples attention to the IPR disclosure https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1213 on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn The associated patent seems to be http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=O7qXEBAJ Let me point out Mr. Allen is an author of both and a long time participant in IETF. Seems the 00 draft was from Oct 2006, the patent filed Jun 2005, and it seems we are just getting the IPR disclosure now. Given there are many ways to solve this sort of problem, and many of them are less likely to be IPR encumbered, I'd consider the possibility that the IESG should send this to the DISPATCH WG to see if they want to work on finding an appropriate solution to it. What do other people think the IESG should do with this draft? Cullen ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
