--On Wednesday, April 19, 2023 16:19 +0000 "Salz, Rich"
<rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> point out, making fields -- especially the patent or
>> application
> number -- mandatory is unreasonable because the discloser
> cannot tell you what they don't know and we should not be doing
> anything that discourages such disclosures.
>
> I am far from confident that this ("do not discourage")
> attitude is the right one to have. The LLC and its counsel
> should decide if we really want to have people saying "I think
> this patent reads against RFC xxx"
Hmm. First, it seems to me that our strategy in this area is
an IETF Trust issue, not an LLC one. Second, Scott (and/or the
current Trustees) may want to comment further on this, but my
understanding for the last few decades -- more or less since we
started talking seriously about IPR -- our policy is that we
want to encourage such disclosures. The reasons probably stray
into areas that Brad Biddle referred to as a "fragile statis" in
the Github issue Robert mentioned [1] but at least two of them
--from a naive, lay, perspective at least-- is that the
potential for such disclosures may help keep some organizations
whose employees are involved in the IETF honest and, perhaps
more important, provides our standards process some protection
against surprises from patents belonging to non-participating
people and companies.
We could change all of that but it seems to me it would require
significant community discussion, not just decisions made by the
Trustees (and/or LLC).
John,
The Trust has no involvement here – In all possible ways Patents are not a Trust issue. The Trust does hold and manage IPR assets, BUT those assests do not include patents.
The Trust also does not manage the Patent disclosures that are part of the IETF’s development process. Either in the sense of the process or in the sense of setting or even advising
on the IETF’s Patent policies/process.
-glenn (wearing my Trust chair hat)
