RE: patent language for all drafts

[Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>]

At 14.50 -0500 01-03-01, Mark Day wrote:
>  > Can we use more generic language, saying that the IETF has been
>>  or will be
>>  apprised of any company's intellectual property?
>
>I very much like this idea. But instead of us reinventing this, could we
>perhaps hear from someone who has written such language in another WG or
>from an AD? (Or find out that "generic" language doesn't work).
>
>Editors, please put the requested change(s) on hold until we get a reading
>on this point. Thanks.

Information about patents should be sent to the IETF Secretariat for 
inclusion on the page http://www.ietf.org/ipr.html.

The text doesn't have to be in the drafts at all. The drafts stand on 
their own, and is developed in the IETF.

The goal for the texts which are sent to the IETF Secretariat is that 
the text is written in such a way so the last call process in the 
IETF doesn't rise issues regarding possibility to implement etc.

I.e. licensing terms for patens is just one more input to the wg. The 
existence of a patent doesn't prohibit by itself the publication of 
an RFC.

If you look on this page in the IETF, it is quite normal for patent 
holder to say that IF this technology or parts thereof is included as 
part of an RFC, the patent holder allow other parties to implement 
the RFC.

Some patent holders ask for explicit written requests for a license 
before the RFC is implemented (but claim that licenses will be given 
automatically for free when such a request comes in).

The important thing is that individuals and organisations disclose 
the existence, or possible existence of patents in the area of work 
of the wg. If that is not disclosed, the party is supposed to not 
participate in the wg. I.e. either disclose or back off.

As AD I recommend organisations which holds patents to give automatic 
license to anyone which want to implement an RFC, and the license is 
for implementing the part of the license in the way the RFC specifies 
it (the patent sometimes covers more than the specific usage the RFC 
specifies). If they want people to ask for licenses, and promise to 
give them away for free -- I ask them to think one more time. 
Because, as Keith says, in some cases the existence of patents have 
made wg's choose a different technology.

I am not a lawyer, and try to not even play one on TV, so I will not 
suggest a text for such a message which I urge Mark to send to the 
IETF Secretariat asap.

     Patrik


-- 
Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>       Internet Engineering Task Force
Area Director, Applications Area                   http://www.ietf.org
Phone: (Stockholm) +46-8-4494212            (San Jose) +1-408-525-8509
        PGP: 2DFC AAF6 16F0 F276 7843  2DC1 BC79 51D9 7D25 B8DC