Re: patent language for all drafts

[Fred Douglis <douglis@research.att.com>]

> > little comment 
> > other than Abbie's fear of how the intellectual property 
> > would affect the 
> > standards efforts (if I'm characterizing that correctly).
> 
> Not really, it is not fear????, it is the right thing to do !!!!!!

I wasn't clear about what I meant and I apologize for mischaracterizing... 
I meant, you wanted to be exceptionally clear up front, moreso than is
required by the IETF, and you cited a case where "promised easy access" was 
different from the "reality" later on (that's the "fear" I was thinking of).

But for patent-pending technology, which most of this stuff is, it's very hard 
(and inappropriate as I understand it) to state the scope of the claims, nor 
to know in advance how much one would charge, other than "reasonable" terms, 
unless one intends to provide it royalty-free.


> The point here is we should know in advance what part or parts of the work
> are covered by patents or IP. Basically, we need everyone to come out clean in
> advance.

Agreed.

> see above remark. Generic statements may not be enough.

My (limited) understanding of IETF rules is that a generic statement that 
claims have been made, coupled with specific statements to the IETF on actual 
intellectual property, would be sufficient.  But the actual IP might be as 
little as "we have IP pertaining to draft-x-y-z."  It sounds like that won't 
satisfy you, but in some cases, it may be the best one can do until a patent 
is public. No?

Fred