Discussion list for IPR-related procedures of the IETF standards process.

todd glassey | 15 Oct 2010 17:12

Re: [Geopriv] IPR on geopriv-arch

On 10/13/2010 4:52 PM, Carl Reed wrote:
> s and 1980's. Further, much of the early work in the OGC - such as in
> web mapping - predates by at least a couple of years most of the web
> mapping related patents

The real issue is the outgoing license which does not mandate that each
adopter MUST (and I means that 'must' in caps) do formal diligence on
their use of these IP's because the IETF cannot give anyone license to
directly or indirectly assign, use, reproduce or convey any rights
pertaining to the underlying Intellectual Properties that are described
in the IETF Publications referred to as Internet Drafts and other public
documents they produce.

Further the IETF's Copyright ss107 rights only pertain to actions in
furtherance of the IETF's research meaning "ANY USE OF THEIR IP WHICH IS
REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM IS ALSO CONSTRAINED BY NOTEWELL AND THE IETF
PROCESSES SINCE THE ONLY POSSIBLE USE OF COPYRIGHT ACT SECTION 107 USE
OF RESEARCH-EXEMPTIONS MUST TAKE PLACE WITHIN THAT FORMAL FRAMEWORK THAT
THE IP WAS INITIALLY PUBLISHED IN OR IT WILL CONSTITUTE PRIVATE USE TO
FURTHER A COMMERCIAL ENDEAVOR WHETHER THAT ENDEAVOR IS ACADEMIC IN FORM
OR IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR TOTALLY.

What I find interesting is that any IDIOT who reads the copyright act
would get that. So it means that the NOTEWELL practice as its sits is
legally broken - the question is whether the management of the IETF has
potential liability for this stupidity in its process-design is not
something I want to touch on here.

So this all boils down to

(Continue reading)

headers

Richard L. Barnes | 15 Oct 2010 17:17

Re: [Geopriv] IPR on geopriv-arch

Todd,

General comments about IETF IPR policies are not appropriate for this  
list.  If you want to challenge those policies, please forward these  
comments to the IETF list.

--Richard

On Oct 15, 2010, at 11:12 AM, todd glassey wrote:

> On 10/13/2010 4:52 PM, Carl Reed wrote:
>> s and 1980's. Further, much of the early work in the OGC - such as in
>> web mapping - predates by at least a couple of years most of the web
>> mapping related patents
>
> The real issue is the outgoing license which does not mandate that  
> each
> adopter MUST (and I means that 'must' in caps) do formal diligence on
> their use of these IP's because the IETF cannot give anyone license to
> directly or indirectly assign, use, reproduce or convey any rights
> pertaining to the underlying Intellectual Properties that are  
> described
> in the IETF Publications referred to as Internet Drafts and other  
> public
> documents they produce.
>
> Further the IETF's Copyright ss107 rights only pertain to actions in
> furtherance of the IETF's research meaning "ANY USE OF THEIR IP  
> WHICH IS
> REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM IS ALSO CONSTRAINED BY NOTEWELL AND THE IETF

(Continue reading)

headers

todd glassey | 15 Oct 2010 18:13

Re: [Geopriv] IPR on geopriv-arch

On 10/15/2010 8:17 AM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
> Todd,
> 
> General comments about IETF IPR policies are not appropriate for this
> list.  If you want to challenge those policies, please forward these
> comments to the IETF list.

Richard - you seem to think that their intentionally creating bad policy
controls the protection of your licensing of this IP and that may be the
funniest thing ever.

You and the OGC and the GeoPriv operations are all constrained by these
issues whether you like it or not.  Sorry - the idea that the Guy in the
Labcoat gets to say "Never mind the little spud in the labcoat, pay
attention to the great and might Oz" is so much crap it's comical.

ANY GROUP WHICH CREATES IP MUST DEAL WITH THESE ISSUES, and pointing to
the IPR WG is the same incompetence that the whole IETF is run from,
that being IMHO a system  designed to allow technologists to ignore the
laws and processes the rest of the earth is constrained by.

But wait - lets get BBN Legal involved to see what BB&N's formal take on
this is, and whether they as the home of TCP/IP implement the same legal
controls the IETF has in place.

"No" you don't want that to happen??? Yeah - that's what I thought you
would say.

Todd Glassey

(Continue reading)