Subject: RIM patents using a mime body in a message (and ignores IETF IPR rules)

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:02:08 -0700

On October 8, the IESG approved the registration of application/3gpp- 
ims+xml Media Type.  On Nov 2, RIM filed an IPR disclosure related to  
this at

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1219/

The associated patent, filed Oct 2008, is at

http://www.google.com/patents?id=Mk7GAAAAEBAJ

and the related draft is

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bakker-sipping-3gpp-ims-xml-body-handling

I will note John-Luc Bakker from RIM is an author of both the patent  
and  and the draft. The draft has been widely discussed at IETF with  
no mention of IPR before this. As an IESG member, I was not aware of  
this IPR at the time the approval was made and I do not believe any  
other IESG members were aware of it. I do believe the discussion would  
have been different had the IESG been aware of this IPR.

If anyone thinks this is, ah, inappropriate, I would recommend they  
appeal the IESG decision to approve this. (see section 6.5 of RFC 2026  
for how this works).  An IETF LC on this in the future would allow the  
community to make an decision that was informed of the IPR.

Cullen

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:13:25 +1300

How about the IESG simply rescinds its decision in this week's
meeting? I don't see any need for an appeal; if there's a
prima facie violation of the disclosure rules, it's just a
management item. Much less bother than an appeal.

Of course, the rescission would be subject to appeal, but
that's another story.

   Brian

On 2009-11-19 15:02, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> 
> On October 8, the IESG approved the registration of
> application/3gpp-ims+xml Media Type.  On Nov 2, RIM filed an IPR
> disclosure related to this at
> 
> and  and the draft. The draft has been widely discussed at IETF with no
> mention of IPR before this. As an IESG member, I was not aware of this
> IPR at the time the approval was made and I do not believe any other
> IESG members were aware of it. I do believe the discussion would have
> been different had the IESG been aware of this IPR.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:04:29 +0900

Cullen Jennings wrote:
> other IESG members were aware of it.
I agree with this assessment. I was not aware of any related IPRs when I 
sponsored this MIME type registration and I don't think other IESG 
members knew either.
> I do believe the discussion would have been different had the IESG 
> been aware of this IPR.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:19:41 -0500

FWIW, I agree with Brian.  Pulling this (waiting until the IESG
approves and only then filing the disclosure) on a media type
registration seems particularly egregious but is, in any event,
exactly the type of situation the IPR rules are intended to
prevent.  Like him, I believe that the IESG can recind its
action on this basis without having to go through the procedural
clutter of an appeal.  In addition, if an appeal were really
necessary, nothing prevents one or more of the IESG members who
believe that they would have acted differently had the
disclosure occurred on a timely basis from filing it.

     john

--On Thursday, November 19, 2009 15:13 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> application/3gpp-ims+xml Media Type.  On Nov 2, RIM filed an
>> IPR disclosure related to this at
>> 
>> I will note John-Luc Bakker from RIM is an author of both the
>> patent and  and the draft. The draft has been widely
>> discussed at IETF with no mention of IPR before this. As an
>> IESG member, I was not aware of this IPR at the time the
>> approval was made and I do not believe any other IESG members
>> were aware of it. I do believe the discussion would have been
>> different had the IESG been aware of this IPR.
>> 
>> If anyone thinks this is, ah, inappropriate, I would
>> recommend they appeal the IESG decision to approve this. (see
>> section 6.5 of RFC 2026 for how this works).  An IETF LC on
>> this in the future would allow the community to make an
>> decision that was informed of the IPR.
>> 
>> Cullen
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>

---

From: "Scott Lawrence" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:40:15 -0500

> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bakker-sipping-3gpp-ims-xml-body-handling

Quite aside from the question of what the IESG should do about the
registration, my reading of this patent finds nothing novel.  Almost all
the claims (including the first one, upon which all others are based),
are essentially just claiming invention of multi-part mime, which
predated the application by several years.

Is there (should there be) a mechanism whereby the IETF or one of our
more corporate parents can file some challenge to the patent having been
issued?

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:40:25 -0800 (PST)

> disclosure occurred on a timely basis from filing it.

+1

I'll also note that nothing prevents then from registrering this in the media
type vnd. tree.

				Ned

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:51:16 -0800

Hi,

I would suggest to handle this issue calmly from here on.

In this specific case, even assuming validity of the patent, the rightholder
may already have a enforceability problem based on what I also perceive as a
clear IETF process violation.  As the very minimum, if the patent were ever
asserted, the process violation gives the alleged infringer's lawyers
something to work with.

If the IESG were inclined, as a body, to document its perception of a
process violation, then things would look even brighter to me.

Rescinding the RFC-to-be in question may be an option, unless the technology
is really a big step forward.  If it were, though, I would probably vote (if
I had a vote, which I do not) to issue the RFC anyway.  It's clearly within
our policy to issue the RFC, if we choose to do so, even in the presence of
a process violation like this.

Rescinding RFCs-to-be only based on late disclosures may set a precedence
for the future we may not like.
 
The mechanisms to challenge the validity of a patent depend on the
legislation.  In the US, one example is a request for re-examination.  A
good foundation for such a request would be the presence of Prior Art not
considered during the prosecution phase.  The effort and cost involved is
significant and can be compared to the prosecution of a patent.  One problem
with re-examination is that one has to show that the patent office was wrong
in issuing the patent originally.  That is, one does not only fight the
interests of the rightholder, but also the established opinion of the patent
office.  No one likes to be proven wrong, and, therefore, re-examination is
often an uphill battle against an established bureaucracy.

For patent families with significant international coverage, multiply effort
and risk by the number of legislations involved.

Regards,
Stephan

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:32:15 -0800

> Rescinding RFCs-to-be only based on late disclosures may set 
> a precedence for the future we may not like.

Doing so would provide an incentive for the patent holder to delay disclosure
until after the RFC is issued.

IETF lacks a censure policy for such violations.  Maybe we need one.

-d

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:32:54 -0500

> often an uphill battle against an established bureaucracy.

Worse yet, if you don't have all of your expensive patent lawyers
lined up, and the patent office decides it doesn't want to admit that
it screwed up, the patent actually ends up being *stronger* afterwards
--- that is, a patent which survives a re-exam is presumed by the
courts to be more likely valid.

This brings up an interesting strategy by patent trolls to secretly
get a sock-puppet to deliberately launch a incompentent patent
re-examine, just to make the patent appear stronger.  As a result,
some patent attorneys, upon examination of the unique facts of a
particular patent, might decide that it's better to not try to
challenge the patent, and wait for the troll to make the first strike.

It's amazing how screwed up the US Patent system is, isn't it?

     	     	 	    	   	  	 - Ted

P.S. This is not legal advice, and I don't play a lawyer on TV.

P.P.S.  The opinions expressed in this e-mail are my own, and do not
reflect the views or business strategies of my employer.

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:10:23 -0800

Hi Ted,
I believe you are right.
Let me further add a) it's IMO foolish to attempt to force re-examination
without a *good* patent lawyer (even if it's allowed in the US), and b)
that, AFAIK, this aspect of the perceived brokenness of the patent system is
not local to the US.
Stephan

---

From: "John-Luc Bakker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:46:38 -0600

Dear all,

With regard to the recent discussion regarding RIM's recent IPR
disclosures, I understand the community's concerns regarding the
timeliness of the disclosure.  As employees of companies we are bound by
confidentiality obligations and, in addition, cannot always control our
company's internal processes.  The community's concerns have been
brought to the attention of my employer and they are in the process of
evaluating the concerns.  My company has asked for your patience while
they take the time to evaluate the concerns and determine if there is an
appropriate course of action in this matter to alleviate the concerns of
the community.

Your understanding is appreciated.

Kind regards,

	John-Luc

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 12:40 PM
To: John C Klensin
Cc: Cullen Jennings; IETF-Discussion list
Subject: Re: RIM patents using a mime body in a message (and ignores
IETF IPRrules)

+1

I'll also note that nothing prevents then from registrering this in the
media
type vnd. tree.

				Ned

---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.

---

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 20 Nov 2009 05:28:58 -0000

>registration, my reading of this patent ...

Not to belabor the obvious, but this is not a patent.  It is a patent
APPLICATION.  No patent has been issued.  Indeed, it sounds like no
patent should be issued.

The PTO has a protest process that appears appropriate in this
situation.  You can file a protest including prior art with an
explanation of how it relates to the application which will be
included with the application for the examiner.

The rules are quite strict.  See here for details:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/1900_1901.htm

R's,
John

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:12:48 -0500

John-Luc:

I am sending this note to help you understand the IETF IPR policies; 
they are fully described in BCP 79 
(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/bcp/bcp79.txt).  I hope this note clarifies 
the responsibilities of RIM employees (and anyone else) who 
participate in IETF.

IETF participants engage as individuals, not as representatives of 
their employers (See Section B.1 of RFC 4677; 
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4677.txt).  The obligation to follow the 
IPR policies in BCP 79 is an individual one, not a corporate 
one.  Section 6.1of BCP 79 is quite clear; IETF Participants are 
required to disclose IPR which they "reasonably and personally know" 
applies to a Contribution.  The BCP specifically excludes cases in 
which a participant is unaware of IPR held by their employer.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need further clarification.

Russ Housley
IETF Chair

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:25:42 -0500

Russ Housley wrote:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4677.txt). The obligation to follow the IPR 
> policies in BCP 79 is an individual one, not a corporate one. Section 
> 6.1of BCP 79 is quite clear; IETF Participants are required to 
> disclose IPR which they "reasonably and personally know" applies to a 
> Contribution. The BCP specifically excludes cases in which a 
> participant is unaware of IPR held by their employer.
>
In the present instance, the invitation to use the lack of personal 
knowledge as an excuse is ill-advised: a quick search for inventor name 
"john-luc" "bakker" in the US patent office database of published patent 
applications returns 34 patent applications with titles indicating a 
connection to data networks and mobility.

It could have been that RIM internal IPR management would have isolated 
IETF contributors from personal knowledge of specific applications, but 
that seems not to be the case.

Perhaps the "Note Well" has some intrinsic enforcement limitations 
(enforcement in the meaning that it would be useful for a third party - 
neither IESG not its trust - against a patent holder who had failed to 
comply). But I am not a lawyer and I don't know.

Regards,

- Thierry Moreau

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:03:25 +0100

Russ Housley <[email-masked]> writes:

> IPR policies in BCP 79 is an individual one, not a corporate one.
> Section 6.1of BCP 79 is quite clear; IETF Participants are required to

John-Luc said he is bound by confidentiality obligations from his
company, and I think the same applies to most employees of larger
organizations.  There is nothing explicit in BCP 79 to protect against
this apparent conflict of interest, or is there?

/Simon

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:46:50 +0000

> this apparent conflict of interest, or is there?

Being horribly naïve, I'd have thought that it was obvious that if  
you cannot satisfy both your obligations as an employee, and your  
obligations as an IETF participant, then one or other rôle has to be  
dropped - ie, either you quit your job, or cease to participate  
within the IETF. I simply don't see what other solution there is, or  
could be, and I don't see what on earth BCP 79 could usefully say.

So, as of now, it seems manifest that any RIM employees should not be  
participating within the IETF until they have resolved this conflict  
- indeed, I get the sense that this is RIM's decision, from the  
statements that RIM employees have made on this list.

As I say, though, I am horribly naïve in my understanding of the word  
"obligation", and I do appreciate that some organizations exist which  
might put pressure on employees to participate in willful disregard  
for the IPR rules. I also appreciate that those individuals affected  
- especially in these times - would then be placed in a very  
uncomfortable position - one I'm very glad not to be in.

The problem is, though, that an organization in such a position will  
end up eventually be seen to be in such a position, meaning that they  
are in the position of RIM as I outline above. That is, if the  
intention is to take commercial advantage of ignoring the IETF's  
rules for participants, then when such advantage is taken, it'll be  
obvious that the rules have indeed been ignored, and will threaten  
their ability to further participate.

There is an argument that RIM employees should be removed from all  
IETF mailing lists until such time as RIM publically states they  
shall henceforth follow IETF IPR rules, and order their employees to  
do the same. This has happened to individuals before, when they have  
clearly stated that they cannot follow the Note Well, and in this  
case the employees are clearly stating much the same. I'd like to  
think that this is not required - that, in effect, RIM have taken  
more or less this decision themselves - but I do look forward to  
RIM's explanation of how they intend to resolve the apparent conflict  
of obligations they have foisted upon their employees.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email-masked] - xmpp:[email-masked]
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:13:29 +0100

Dave Cridland <[email-masked]> writes:

> Being horribly naïve, I'd have thought that it was obvious that if you
> cannot satisfy both your obligations as an employee, and your
> dropped - ie, either you quit your job, or cease to participate within
> the IETF. I simply don't see what other solution there is, or could
> be, and I don't see what on earth BCP 79 could usefully say.

The document could say just that, if that is indeed the general opinion.
It may be useful for employees to be able to point at such text when
discussing the IETF rules internally with their organization.

I'm not sure if that text would have helped in this instance because it
is not clear whether the RIM employees were unaware of the obligations
in the IETF rules, or if they decided (or were ordered) to pursue
anyway.  Referring to confidentiality obligations suggests the latter to
me, though, because otherwise you could simply have said you weren't
aware of the rules instead.

/Simon

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:16:49 -0500

> this apparent conflict of interest, or is there?

   Since disclosure is required
   for anyone submitting documents or participating in IETF discussions,
   a person who does not disclose IPR for this reason, or any other
   reason, must not contribute to or participate in IETF activities with
   respect to technologies that he or she reasonably and personally
   knows to be Covered by IPR which he or she will not disclose.

Also,

   If a Contributor first learns of IPR in its Contribution that meets
   the conditions of Section 6.6, for example a new patent application
   or the discovery of a relevant patent in a patent portfolio, after
   the Contribution is published in an Internet-Draft, a disclosure must
   be made as soon as reasonably possible after the IPR becomes
   reasonably and personally known to the Contributor.

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:44:42 -0500

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:16:49 -0500
Scott Brim <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > organizations.  There is nothing explicit in BCP 79 to protect
> > against this apparent conflict of interest, or is there?
> 
>    for anyone submitting documents or participating in IETF
> discussions, a person who does not disclose IPR for this reason, or
> any other reason, must not contribute to or participate in IETF
> activities with respect to technologies that he or she reasonably and
> personally knows to be Covered by IPR which he or she will not
> disclose.
> 
Precisely.  The conflict Simon mentions was of course known to most of
the WG; that's one reason we have that clause.

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:47:06 -0500

I don't see the issue as being whether the decision would have been
different, the rules were not followed. Rescinding the decision is
certainly appropriate.

It would be useful to know whether any other parties have implemented
this spec to date. If so the situation is rather different since the
other parties would be affected in two ways, first by the withdrawal
of the registration itself but secondly as it may affect defenses
against a RIM infringement claim under the Dell decision.

We should remember that the intention of the rules was to make them
self-policing by attempting to engage legal sanctions in the case of
default. If a company does not make timely disclosure of its IPR it
risks having damaged it.

-- 
-- 
New Website: http://hallambaker.com/
View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week,
http://quantumofstupid.com/

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:16:17 -0500

This was the case in the past. Recently one of my lawyers suggested
that this is not necessarily the case at present. The USPTO appears to
be (slowly) getting its act together.

While USPTO behavior has been rent-seeking in recent years, preferring
to issue stupid patents rather than risk being sued by the applicant,
the frequency of re-examination requests during court proceedings has
increased substantially and is providing more of a counterbalancing
interest.

In this case there are only applications, not actual patent claims.
The applicant is obliged to provide any information received that
might affect the validity of the patent to the USPTO. Failure to do so
can lead to the patent being invalidated. So it is not a question of a
re-exam.

As always, IANAL and this is not legal advice.

---

From: Sabahattin Gucukoglu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:40:01 +0000

> IETF lacks a censure policy for such violations.  Maybe we need one.

I have a suspicion that part of the problem is that in cases like this one, the IETF has demonstrated a will to validate IPR all by itself, which is fine except that nowhere that I know of have we publicly expressed our dissatisfaction with the vast majority of what passes for "Rescindable", preferring instead to do without at the time the disclosure is made.  A BCP stating, "Patents are a nuisance, be told, and we'd sooner be without them." would seem to suit us well in cases where outsiders might otherwise be tempted to play fast and loose with the rules, perhaps this would encourage more upfront disclosures and, thereby, acceptance of reasonable and non-discriminatory IPR.  And can the IETF deny its preference for non-patented work?

I take no sides myself, I just want us to live in peace and harmony.

Cheers,
Sabahattin

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:55:12 +0000

>Your understanding is appreciated.
John-Luc, I would like to understand if RIM's recent IPR disclosures 
affect general use of application/3gpp-ims+xml, or only its specific use 
as described in draft-bakker-sipping-3gpp-ims-xml-body-handling.

Thank you,
Alexey

P.S. I understand that my question might be naive or stupid, but I have 
no doubts people will tell me if it is.

-- 
IETF Application Area Director, <http://www.ietf.org/IESGmems.html>
Internet Messaging Team Lead, <http://www.isode.com>
JID: same as my email address

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:59:12 -0800

> no doubts people will tell me if it is.

Alexey,

As a non-lawyer, I think your question is quite reasonable.  However my small 
range of experience with attorneys causes me to think that, first, we aren't 
likely to get an answer that is sufficiently helpful, and two, that there is a 
different line in inquiry to pursue that might be much more useful to the community.

There is some history of having organization's grant broad usage rights to the 
community, as part of having their technology made an IETF standard.  DKIM is 
the latest example that, in my own experience:

    <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/423/>

This suggests that a productive line of inquiry to RIM is whether they would be 
willing to make a similar licensing offer.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:43:35 +1300

> the WG; that's one reason we have that clause.

IMHO, BCP79 creates no particular problem for corporate lawyers who
are instructed by their corporate management to ensure that the company
behaves as a good citizen in its standards activities. This is strongly
in the company's interests, anyway, since failure to disclose when
required by a standards process threatens the validity of the patent.

It really is not the IETF's problem. It is a problem for a company that
chooses not to behave as a good citizen.

   Brian

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:11:40 +0100

> required by a standards process threatens the validity of the patent.

There is no requirement in the IETF process for organizations to
disclose patents as far as I can see.  The current approach of only
having people participate, and disclose patents, in the IETF is easy to
work around by having two persons in an organization doing different
things: one works on specifying and standardizing technology, and the
other is working on patenting the technology.

> chooses not to behave as a good citizen.

The situation remains that the IETF does not have any mechanism to apply
pressure on organizations to disclose patent information.

/Simon

---

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:03:57 -0500

> other is working on patenting the technology.
Hi Simon,

This is certainly correct in principles. But to which extent the IETF 
disclosure approach "is easy to work around by having two persons ..." 
is a matter of appreciation.

My understanding is that it is not easy to arrange protocol engineer 
rolls in such a way. I'm quite sure you don't have a clear case which 
you can refer to support the opposite view. The reason I am confident is 
that both inventor status and an IETF contributor require creativity in 
general. The IETF collective engineering faces technological challenges 
like any other design group.

I guess it is not realistic to expect managers to send protocol 
engineers with little creativity traits to the IETF in order to preserve 
the ability to file patent applications without disclosure.
> pressure on organizations to disclose patent information.
This is certainly correct, but I am afraid the cause is more profound 
than the above IPR disclosure work around. Specifically, the Qualcom vs 
Broadcom case on JVT over H.264 IPR would have taught corporate lawyers 
that a standardization body membership contract binding to the 
corporation is a must for IPR disclosure enforcement against the 
corporation. (I am not a lawyer ...) The IETF does not use this approach.

Regards,

- Thierry Moreau

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:33:26 +0100

Simon Josefsson writes:
> having people participate, and disclose patents, in the IETF is easy 
> to work around by having two persons in an organization doing 
> different things: one works on specifying and standardizing 
> technology, and the other is working on patenting the technology.

How can you practically avoid the first person knowing about it?

Arnt

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:50:56 +0100

> How can you practically avoid the first person knowing about it?

Make sure (through confidentiality agreements) that the second one do
not talk with the first?  Putting them in different continents helps.

/Simon

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:23:26 +1300

>> other is working on patenting the technology.

Replying first to Simon:

The requirement is indeed on individual participants and only if they
"reasonably and personally" know about the IPR. But employees participating
in an activity for their employer are (afaik, IANAL) acting as agents
of their employer, and it's standard practice in most companies for
them to have their legal obligations such as IPR disclosure handled by
a company lawyer or IPR specialist. So the distinction really doesn't
matter. I believe that we included "reasonably and personally known"
exactly because of the problem of employees of one department of a big
company not knowing what other departments were doing, and to avoid the
onerous cost of a patent search for employees of companies holding tens
of thousands of patents. I believe that this setting of the rules has
worked well since the disclosure requirement was introduced in 1996.

> corporation. (I am not a lawyer ...) The IETF does not use this approach.

Replying to Thierry:

Again, IANAL, but I understand that participants and their employers
are bound by the IETF rules by the simple fact of participation, with
no need for an explicit contract. The famous Note Well text is simply
a reminder of that. The IETF doesn't need to enforce anything; patent
holders who break the rules will have to explain why to a judge, if
someone challenges their patent in court.

Of course, we can underline the point by choosing to rescind a standard
if a participant is found to have broken the rules.

    Brian

---

From: "Scott Lawrence" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:58:21 -0500

> not talk with the first?  Putting them in different continents helps.

Not relevant in this case - the participating individuals were named on
the patent applications as inventors.  It would be hard to convince a
judge that they didn't know...

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:33:37 -0500

> other is working on patenting the technology.

Simon, from rfc3979:

   l. "Reasonably and personally known": means something an individual
      knows personally or, because of the job the individual holds,
      would reasonably be expected to know.  This wording is used to
      indicate that an organization cannot purposely keep an individual
      in the dark about patents or patent applications just to avoid the
      disclosure requirement.  But this requirement should not be
      interpreted as requiring the IETF Contributor or participant (or
      his or her represented organization, if any) to perform a patent
      search to find applicable IPR.

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:51:28 -0800

> How can you practically avoid the first person knowing about it?

It seems very easy to me, and need not imply any kind of plotting.  Many
large companies offer incentives for filing patents and in that case it is
in one's own self interest to be on the lookout for patentable ideas
whatever the source may be...