It is worth remembering that the original concern arose out of an episode many decades ago when a patent holder sent people to a standards meeting to insert a requirement to make use of technology they had an undeclared interest in.
That particular case was self-healing in that the court invalidated the patent as a result.
So if you have IPR and wish to keep it, it would probably be in your best interest to avoid any activity a court might interpret as deliberately doing something of the sort.
The much bigger IPR problem comes from the far more numerous claims made by parties that never send anyone to anything and from the people who monitor standards processes so that they can make claims on the technology being discussed. The fact that such a patent will 'probably' not stand in court is no guarantee it won't.
Someone had a patent purporting to claim the invention of Web Mail. Which is really odd because a Web Mail system just happened to be the test case I used as a test case for HTTP and discovered that the POST method was broken as a result. (Web Mail was not very useful in 1993 because it solved a problem most people didn't yet have)
One of the reasons I pushed to have the IETF mailing lists run by IETF and permanently archived was precisely to mitigate this type of behavior.
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 8:12 AM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
IANAL and I think the IESG needs to get the IETF's lawyer's opinion, preferably before tomorrow morning. But given the words in the BCP, better safe than sorry.
A meeting scheduled in a room paid for as part of the IETF meeting sure seems as if it's probably intended to affect the standards process.
Brian
On 22-Jul-19 00:02, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
> you are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I am speaking as a person who ran the BOF where the specific
> text "intended to affect the IETF Standards Process” was developed and agreed to as well as a person who
> edited the specific text - it is my opinion that the BOF (and thus the IETF) intended the rules to apply
> wherever actions are taken or text developed that are "intended to affect the IETF Standards Process”
> in particular, IPR disclosure is required if known
>
> I have no opinion as to the facts of the specific case of ANRW since I have not been following that
>
> Scott
>
>> On Jul 21, 2019, at 7:42 AM, Richard Barnes <rlb@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Scott, I think you may be over-stating things a bit. The IETF doesn't get to make universal statements that apply to things out of its remit. For example, there are numerous research conferences that are held on IETF-related technologies -- often with a specific focus on providing helpful input to IETF! -- which are not held under note well.
>>
>> The location of such meetings alongside IETF meetings does not change this fact. AFAICT, ANRW is not covered by Note Well, despite having the explicit goal of "transition[ing] research back into IETF"..
>>
>> The definition of Contribution in 8179 makes this clear from the start:
>>
>> """
>> "Contribution": any submission to the IETF ...
>> """
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 7:27 AM Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Thanks Scott, that's helpful.
>> A
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Scott O. Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: 21 July 2019 11:24
>> To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: Applying "Note Well" to side meetings
>>
>> speaking as co-editor of the ruleset
>>
>> see the definition of “Contribution” in RFC 8179
>>
>> basically, the “note well” applies whenever activities that are "intended to
>> affect the IETF Standards Process” may happen
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>> On Jul 20, 2019, at 3:18 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Normally [1] when we have a "bar BoF" (also known as a "side meeting") we do
>>> not apply the terms of the "Note Well" [2]. We have usually considered bar
>>> BoFs to be outside the IETF because the IETF has no control over who meets
>>> and drinks.
>>>
>>> However, this time around, the side meetings are somewhat more formal with
>>> room bookings and projectors and advertisements and so on.
>>>
>>> So, does the Note Well apply to these side meetings?
>>>
>>> Apologies if I missed an email on this: I sometimes don't focus as much as I
>>> should.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Adrian
>>>
>>> [1] For some practical definition of "normal"
>>> [2] https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well/
>>> --
>>> Read some fairy stories for adults of all ages
>>> .. Tales from the Wood
>>> .. More Tales from the Wood
>>> .. Tales from Beyond the Wood
>>> .. Tales from the Castle
>>> Get them on line https://www.feedaread.com/profiles/8604/
>>> Or buy a signed copy from me by post
>>> *** Stop me in the corridor at IETF-105 to get a copy ***
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
