At 17:19 26-01-2012, Dave CROCKER wrote:
What I believe is /not/ worth keeping -- and which we have already
made piecemeal concessions to -- is that corporations in fact /do/
participate in the IETF and need to be treated as responsible
participants. (Note that the word responsible, here, has
I agree there are many "gray area" cases that I think it would be best
to shy away from over specifying. But what do we do when there is a
bright line violation of RFC3979? IMO I think we should have consensus
on a very small set of repercussions for blatant violations of RFC3979.
Even if the co
Stephan Wenger wrote:
Dear Hector,
I'm not quite sure that your understanding of the US patent law and MPEP
rules is inline with most patent practitioners, or that your post
otherwise make all that much sense.
First, the thing you are talking about are known as "Markush Claim". From
MPEP, 803.
Reinforcing some of what Adrian said:
On 1/26/12 5:35 PM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
I appreciate that there need to be disincentives to infringing the IPR policy, but I'm a
little wary of the idea of codifying a system of sanctions. Mainly for the sorts of
"gaming the system" thinking they en
On 1/26/2012 3:35 PM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
I appreciate that there need to be disincentives to infringing the IPR policy, but I'm a
little wary of the idea of codifying a system of sanctions. Mainly for the sorts of
"gaming the system" thinking they engender:
It is likely that we have
Dear Hector,
I'm not quite sure that your understanding of the US patent law and MPEP
rules is inline with most patent practitioners, or that your post
otherwise make all that much sense.
First, the thing you are talking about are known as "Markush Claim". From
MPEP, 803.02: "A Markush-type clai
t; Sent: 26 January 2012 23:12
>> To: IETF-Discussion list
>> Subject: Forthcoming draft: draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions
>>
>> Just a heads-up:
>>
>> Adrian Farrel and I started work on a draft to focus discussion on
>> sanctions that could be applied
: Re: Forthcoming draft: draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions
I appreciate that there need to be disincentives to infringing the IPR policy,
but
I'm a little wary of the idea of codifying a system of sanctions. Mainly for
the
sorts of "gaming the system" thinking they engender:
-
Pete Resnick wrote:
Just a heads-up:
Adrian Farrel and I started work on a draft to focus discussion on
sanctions that could be applied to violators of the IETF's IPR policy.
Because of incidents like the present one, we've each been asked by WG
chairs and others what can be done in response
some more.
Cheers,
Adrian
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Richard
> L. Barnes
> Sent: 26 January 2012 23:35
> To: Pete Resnick
> Cc: IETF-Discussion list
> Subject: Re: Forthcoming draft: draft-farrresnickel-
I appreciate that there need to be disincentives to infringing the IPR policy,
but I'm a little wary of the idea of codifying a system of sanctions. Mainly
for the sorts of "gaming the system" thinking they engender:
-- Is the benefit of infringing worse than the cost of the sanction?
-- If it's
oming draft: draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions
>
> Just a heads-up:
>
> Adrian Farrel and I started work on a draft to focus discussion on
> sanctions that could be applied to violators of the IETF's IPR policy.
> Because of incidents like the present one, we've each been asked
Just a heads-up:
Adrian Farrel and I started work on a draft to focus discussion on
sanctions that could be applied to violators of the IETF's IPR policy.
Because of incidents like the present one, we've each been asked by WG
chairs and others what can be done in response to such violations. W
13 matches
Mail list logo
