IPR Issues: What’s New (and a little of what’s old)

Scott Brimsbrim@cisco.com

IETF 61

IETF IPR policy RFC 3667 – BCP, rights in

contributions RFC 3668 – BCP, rights in

technology RFC 3669 – INF, WG guidelines

Old Stuff

Individual responsibility Must disclose own IPR in

“contributions” from self and others. “Reasonably and personally known”. “As soon as reasonably possible”

after “realize” something is going to be incorporated into a draft.

Escape by not participating.

However … IPR claims can come from anywhere

at any time. Validity of claim is only determined

in the courts. Licensing terms are more important

than claims. Need not disclose licensing terms

ever.

What’s a WG to do? Every WG is different. IPR is just a criterion, like scalability. Look for IPR early and often. No judgement of IPR claim validity. Can’t be sure, but rarely need to be. Evaluate risk.

When to ask about IPR When examining a technology, and

deciding whether to initiate work on it. When deciding whether to adopt a draft

as a working group document. When choosing between two or more

working group drafts that use different technologies.

When deciding whether to depend on a technology developed outside the working group.

Common licensing terms License not required. Licensed with no restrictions. Licensed with restrictions (e.g. GPL) Licensed solely for implementations

complying with a standard. IPR licensed under “reasonable and non-

discriminatory terms” (RAND, nearly meaningless), with or without royalty fees.

Reciprocity and defensive suspension.

Evaluate Risk Risk depends on critical nature of

IPR, TTL of IPR, history, … Take claims seriously. Push hard to get more information.

Third-party disclosure Avoid DoS attack through

rumormongering … but take every suggestion

seriously. Balance discipline and

encouragement (as usual) to get the right level of third-party disclosure.

Keep other WGs in mind when discover IPR. when receive a third-party

disclosure suggestion.

Summary Think about IPR early and often. Evaluate risk, like any other factor. Licensing terms are most

important. There’s a lot more in the drafts. Talk about real world problems and

solutions.

New Stuff

What’s New? New disclosure post and search tools. Slight edits to 3667 (and 3668). Timing of

submission and disclosure. “Each author”.

-> 3907, 3908. RFC 3905 (template). Draft-savola-ipr-lastcall-05.txt. More experience. More consistency.

IPR is more powerful than technical issues

If someone raises a bogus technical issue, the WG knows what to do.

If someone raises a bogus IPR issue, we often fall apart for a while.

An IPR threat can be used to reopen a technical issue.

IPR queries at last calls? No because … Do not want an IPR argument at last

calls. IPR can come at any time, last call

is a snapshot. IPR is just one criterion, like

scalability. It already has too much power.

Claimants don’t know their impact

Sometimes they don’t realize what a huge effect their terms have.

Go ahead and tell them: “if you don’t change this, you will lose”.

IPR strategies can change A claimant may start out with one

agenda but change it. During the course of discussion, or

even after the WG has concluded. Terms can be made looser, but

legally hard to make them tighter.

Err on the side of disclosure

Participants are not omniscient. They cannot know legally whether

something does or does not infringe, and they’re not lawyers (usually).

Similar licenses would help

IPR claimants would benefit from using licensing terms that look like those that have already been discussed by WGs.

Some know this already.

Trademarks Under discussion What should be in drafts? What should be in disclosures?

“Crusaders” Crusaders (outside agitators,

parachuters, “free radicals”) can be very disruptive.

What should a chair do about them?

Discussion? Other Issues?

(What time is it?)