John, Good point (and I agree with your concerns about letting the IETF Trust have perpetual rights to sublicense something that has expired, as far as the IETF standards process is concerned). However, unless I missed something, the IPR disclosures themselves would not be relevant to any other body to which the IETF Trust granted copyrights to, but only to the work done in the IETF. At least, this would most likely be the case for any IPR disclosure that was drafted by a competent attorney. Granting the IETF Trust the right to pass on copyrights to a contribution is not the same as making an IPR declaration that passes on to anyone, anywhere for any use of the patented technology in the contribution. Regards, Chuck ------------- Chuck Powers, Motorola, Inc phone: 512-427-7261 mobile: 512-576-0008 > -----Original Message----- > From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 10:34 AM > To: Powers Chuck-RXCP20; Stephan Wenger; IETF Discussion > Subject: RE: Removal of IETF patent disclosures? > > > > --On Thursday, August 14, 2008 11:15 AM -0400 Powers > Chuck-RXCP20 <Chuck.Powers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I think that Stephan raised some very good points as to why > allowing > > some IPR disclosures to be removed actually makes sense. > Since quite > > often IPR disclosures are made for a specific ID in a > specific working > > group, if that WG ultimately does not choose that > technology (and the > > ID expires), I am curious as to what the value would be of keeping > > that IPR disclosure on file forever? If narrowly worded (as > many are), > > it would not be applicable to any other ID submission or working > > group, and would therefore have little use but to add to > the growing > > list of disclosures in the IETF IPR database. > > > > I would be curious to hear the reasoning for keeping these on file, > > apart from 'historical record', since I am not convinced > the IETF IPR > > database is the right place to hold onto IPR disclosures simply for > > historical purposes that only apply to technology that will > never see > > the light of day in an IETF standard, since the IETF > doesn't see any > > value in keeping the IDs that they applied to in the first place. > > Chuck, > > As a long-term advocate of taking the provisions that I-Ds > expire after six months --at least to the extent of having > _all_ rights in them revert to the author(s)-- I think what > you are saying above is profoundly sensible. > > However, the IPR WG, in its wisdom, has concluded, in some > phrasing that was changed fairly late in the game, that the > IETF Trust should get enough rights in I-Ds to authorize all > sorts of subsequent uses of them and their content, with no > time limit. > That phrasing passed through IETF Last Call and IESG signoff and > is the context in which the Trust is now writing rules. It > seems to me that, if the IETF (through the Trust) is going to > be in a position to grant rights to use material in I-Ds > forever, and if rights to use code in I-Ds (even for the > first time) don't expire after six months or some other > closed period, then, logically, we are obligated to keep the > IPR disclosures forever. > > I suppose that, if I were a paranoid lawyer (and IANAL, even > if I'm paranoid about these sorts of things) and giving > advice to a participant in the IETF, I'd recommend that an > IPR disclosure be filed on every single I-D, indicating that > any licenses I might grant were good for only six months > after the posting of the last I-D in the relevant series > unless it were approved for RFC publication. What that would > do to the system we seem to be making for ourselves would be > interesting, at least. > > john > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf