Simon has hit on a valid point that not many seem to have been considering in this discussion: it is one thing to evaluate validity of an IPR claim and quite another to evaluate validity of an IPR disclosure. I think the reason for not taking a position relative to the validity of the IPR is that this can easily become quite a tangled mess. To perform some reasonable evaluation of an IPR disclosure - such as has been suggested in this thread - can probably be done without conflict with international patent office decisions or potential damage to corporate or personal "property." Another point to consider is that a very-likely-to-be-valid reason for removing an IPR disclosure is if an organization's legal representative(s) convince the IETF's legal beagles that an IPR disclosure was made innappropriately - such as anonymously, or by an explicitly unauthorized person (such as a disgruntled ex-employee or a competitor). There must be a way to handle this situation. Timeliness of the counter-assertion should be a factor, but that's one to be decided by counsel. I believe the IETF has some degree of responsibility to do at least some reasonable amount of evaluation of an IPR disclosure - whatever might be the policy regarding the evaluation of IPR itself. -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Simon Josefsson > Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 9:30 AM > To: Andrew Sullivan > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Removal of IETF patent disclosures? > > Andrew Sullivan <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 09:25:42AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > > > >> request should be well established. I can think of at > least two reasons > >> that are valid: > >> > >> * Exact duplicates > >> * Spam > > > > As soon as you have evaluated the claim, even for "exact > duplication" > > or "it's spam", haven't you done exactly what the pages claim not to > > do (take a position on the validity of the claim)? I know > that sounds > > silly, but it seems to me that any evaluation _at all_ is > > automatically a contravention of what the pages say the > IETF does. If > > the pages are just a list of claims, including bogus ones, then the > > IETF has taken no position at all. As soon as some of them > have been > > evaluated, we're at the top of a slippery slope, I think. > > That's a safer position, yes, but I suspect it will be completely > unusable quickly because of spam. > > I can't find anything about permitting anonymous patent disclosures to > the IETF, so I think it would be possible to require some human > interaction with the submitter, to verify his identity, before a > disclosure is posted. Contacting a company's counsel when feasible > would also help. I don't think this would violate the requirement not > to validate claims -- we are not validating the claims, but just > validating the person notifying the IETF. > > This sounds somewhat complex though, so maybe it is overkill. > > /Simon > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf