Re: Comments on draft-ietf-ipr-submission-rights-08 and draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-12

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <9ED672B9D1A64C489291BE0FB822217D019E66B2@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windep
loy.ntdev.microsoft.com>, "Valerie See (LCA)" writes:
>
>> 6. Section 6.4.3. I think the original language needs to be restored
>> before the new language Scott added, because I think
>> we need to make clear that the _other_ terms and conditions in the
>> blanket RF statement must be RAND.  So the revised sentence would
>> read "However, the requirement for an IPR disclosure is satisfied by
>> a blanket statement of the IPR holder's willingness to license all of
>> its potential IPR meeting the requirements of Section 6.6 (and either
>> Section 6.1.1 or 6.1.2) to implementers of an IETF specification on a
>> royalty-free basis and under other reasonable and non-discriminatory
>> terms and conditions, so long as any such other terms and conditions
>> are disclosed in the IPR disclosure statement." I recall Jorge
>> stating that was the original intent of this language, but I think
>> it's critically important to make it clear here. (I have to state
>> privately that the addition of the new requirement in this sentence
>> to disclose the specific RAND terms feels like a "change" in policy
>> to me, and I am concerned about that as it seems to go beyond a
>> clarification, but if it's going to stay, I do think the above edit
>> is a must have.....)
>
>[vsee] Again, I am sorry to ask about this one, but I think this
>particular issue really _is_ critically important. The reason I say=20
>this is that the omission of the language about RAND leaves the door
>open for blanket statements that are _only_ royalty free, and that
>might have other, _non-RAND_ terms and conditions (such as those=20
>you might see associated with commercial licenses in a non-standards
>sort of transactional relationship - which might be perfectly fine in
>those types of circumstances, but which may not be at all what one
>would hope to see in a standards context). In this case, adding the=20
>text about "and under other reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and
>conditions" provides a level of clarity that I think strikes the
>balance that you are seeking to protect both the interests of=20
>implementers and IPR holders in the standards-setting work that is=20
>done in the IETF.=20

Valerie, thanks for the note.  I don't have time to go through it
all tonight, but I wanted to respond to this one.  Scott and I
independently concluded that the working group did not support your
interpretation.