I don't believe there is anything in the IETF policies that forbids the removal of an IPR declaration, either, so no IPR Policy change would in fact be required. IMO, that argument is a non-starter. As for someone else 'picking up' an ID that someone else submitted, the only situation I could see that even being relevant too would be having the original sumbitter lose interest, but someone else in the same working group picking up the draft and running with it. Perhaps, this might be a good reason to maintain the IPR disclosures until the working group is closed down, or some other clear sign that the contribution made into that working group will never go anywhere. As from someone taking an ID contributed into a working group and trying to push it into something else, again, a good attorney will ensure that the IPR disclosure would not be valid for that case. Maybe that is the filter - for IPR disclosures specific to a working group, if the technology didn't make it into the standard that working group was drafting, and the work on that standard is complete, then removal would be appropriate. Regards, Chuck ------------- Chuck Powers, Motorola, Inc phone: 512-427-7261 mobile: 512-576-0008 > -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 9:32 AM > To: Powers Chuck-RXCP20 > Cc: Stephan Wenger; IETF Discussion > Subject: Re: Removal of IETF patent disclosures? > > By submitting a draft to the IETF, you (normally) give the > IETF rights to build technology based on it. If an patent > disclosure is related to a draft someone submits, and the > draft expires and the disclosure is removed, someone else can > pick up the draft and submit a new version. > Not being able to read the original patent disclosure in this > situation would be bad. > > Further, there is nothing in the IETF policies that permit > removing patent disclosures today, so if you want to change > the policy here I believe you will need to get consensus to > revise the IETF patent policies. > > /Simon > > "Powers Chuck-RXCP20" <Chuck.Powers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > Chuck > > ------------- > > Chuck Powers, > > Motorola, Inc > > phone: 512-427-7261 > > mobile: 512-576-0008 > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] > On Behalf > >> Of Stephan Wenger > >> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 9:24 AM > >> To: IETF Discussion > >> Subject: Re: Removal of IETF patent disclosures? > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Nokia is one of the companies which submitted a number of > withdrawal > >> requests for previous disclosures. In no case (that I'm aware of) > >> our intention has been to sneak out of a licensing commitment. > >> Instead, we submitted withdrawal requests with the > intention to keep > >> the IETF patent database a useful tool---to do our share > of database > >> cleanup, so to speak. > >> > >> For example, we removed disclosures where -the patent went > away (e.g. > >> an abandoned application with no intention to re-file the > case) -the > >> scope of protection changed in such a way that the previous > >> disclosure became irrelevant, or -an I-D went away and, in our > >> estimation, the protected technology has not been picked up in any > >> other IETF document we are aware of. (If it were, we would submit > >> another disclosure for the same patent, but against a different > >> draft. This has happened once in case of Nokia). > >> > >> We believe that these actions have been of advantage to the > >> transparency of the IETF patent system, and transparency is > >> important. When writing "transparency", I mean > transparency to the > >> technical IETF contributor, who typically has neither > interest, nor > >> the qualification, to accurately interpret the legalese of patent > >> disclosures. (All too often guys just state "there's a patent on > >> this draft", because they found something in the tracker---and in > >> some WG, in practice, that can kill a draft.) > >> > >> We also think that in an organization like the IETF, where > language > >> and practice suggests the disclosure of (unstable) patent > >> applications against > >> (unstable) I-Ds, there is a need for a cleanup mechanism of some > >> sort. This is in contrast to organizations where one needs to > >> declare only once at least one of the documents is > reasonably stable. > >> > >> I personally believe that the impact of a removal of a > disclosure to > >> a licensing promise is rather negligible. The paper-trail of a > >> disclosure can quite easily be reconstructed during > litigation, if a > >> need arises. The IETF's patent database should focus on the > >> practicalities required for IETF standardization only. > >> > >> My suggestion would be to either continue the current practice, or > >> implement something along the following lines: > >> -an "invisible" flag, under control of the discloser > >> -an "expert" mode in the database, which provides the whole > >> paper-trail, and > >> -a "standard" mode which lists only the most recent update of a > >> disclosure (or the information that the request has been flagged > >> "invisible" by the > >> submitter) > >> > >> Regards, > >> Stephan > >> > >> > >> On 8/14/08 12:25 AM, "Simon Josefsson" <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > > >> >> Simon Josefsson skrev: > >> >>> Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I wasn't even aware, during my tenure as chair, that the > >> 'remove' > >> >>>> button existed. The only removals I recall, which may or > >> may not be > >> >>>> in the numbers Simon quoted, were completely bogus and > >> nonsensical > >> >>>> disclosures clearly filed by someone who was just > >> fiddling around on the Web. > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Some of the disclosures that are now removed were > >> certainly not bogus. > >> >>> For example, the patent license given in #833 was > >> important input to > >> >>> a lengthy discussion relatively recently. > >> >> definitely agree on that one "for the record". > >> >> > >> >> OTOH, to give a counterexample, I don't think there's > any value to > >> >> the community to having both #941 and #942 on file - > >> they're duplicates. > >> > > >> > Removing one out of two duplicates doesn't remove any > >> > patent-disclosure related information, so I don't think it > >> is a good counter-example. > >> > > >> > If removals should be permitted, the reasons for accepting > >> a removal > >> > request should be well established. I can think of at least two > >> > reasons that are valid: > >> > > >> > * Exact duplicates > >> > * Spam > >> > > >> > Beyond this I'm less sure we can get away the liability concern. > >> > > >> > False positives for spam could be a issue, so I'm not > even sure the > >> > second one is OK. > >> > > >> > /Simon > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Ietf mailing list > >> > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Ietf mailing list > >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > >> > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf