Larry congrats on getting listed on what I call the
"Stand-Up" page on the
SLS (Stanford Law School) website... Notice that most of the
others there
either have Stanford.EDU or their firms names attached to
them or they are
recognizable names in the Silicon Valley world... and then
there you are.
You know - people like Judge Flies-Away for instance who is
one of the
cornerstones of Native American Law here in the West.
You know Larry there was a Farm Days Mock-Trial Presentation
a couple of
years ago with the Supremes sitting Justice Sandra Day
Oconner and a couple
of other no-names like California Supreme's sitting Chief
Justice RM George
(SLS 64 by the way) , and the University's President Dr. K.
This all
happened in Memorial Auditorium in the Memorial Hall compex
for those
familiar with Stanford. It was incredible - they argued a
case the US
Supreme Curt had argued pertaining to civil rights in the
50's.
Very powerful session - and that's what Stanford is really
all about IMHO.
Or like the Internet and Society's E Rader who wrote the
petition for the
CARP Stay for Day360 - Yow Ms R!... Or the I&S's
Associate Director Ms. G
who fought the battle over disclosure and the CFAA before
the 9th Circuit.
The school is a wealth of powerhouses - hell they have Dean
Kathleen
Sulivan on staff or Paul G. Mr. Copyright himself - (isnt he
still at
MoFo?)... or any number of the others. So yeah - I do think
SLS is hot -
but I would appreciate it if you didnt need to ram it down
our throats - If
you were a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institute it would
be different,
but your not - at least yet.
---
My responses to your ludicrous retorts is inline below
including the one
where we define "what it is to the ability to patent
an IP that the
publication of an ID or RFC does".
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen rosenlaw.com>
To: <ipr-wgietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 11:03 AM
Subject: RE: #1175 Code vs text - second attempt at
resolution
> > 1) ... what rights does the IETF itself need to
advance
> > a standard through its processes.
>
> Copyright and patent. (Maybe take advantage of
trademark.)
Which means that there can be no retained rights in the IETF
process in your
mind. The IETF MUST own all component rights so that the
Trust can sell
licenses for them, right Counsel?
>
> > 2) ... so how do we judge that value is and
> > what is it that the IETF is trading for this extra
value???
>
> Listen to the discussion, Todd, and learn what others
think.
Which means what??? - that the IPR WG gets to renegotiate
standing law and
precedent... you need to roll yourself another one
partner...
FWIW - I have listened and there are many people here who
seem to think they
can rewrite the law... its pretty funny too to watch the
only two attorneys
who still participate here - you and Jorge, try to jocky
their own
initiatives into position without answering ***ANY*** of the
big questions
or saying anything they can be held accountable for.
So let me do some analysis on what it is you seem to want to
accomplish -
correct me if I am wrong. You, based on everything I feel
you have tried to
stop from happening here, seem to have a specific interest
in creating a way
to globally standardize Open Source Products, and since I am
a capitalist I
will assume its for one reason - that being to increase
their marketing
value in competing with commercial products, or I could be
wrong and you
could be a SW Marxist rising from the grave to try and claim
the world owns
it all... I hear Karl screaming from the Grave already.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
> > 3) ... The patent and publishing rights are tied
inextricably to each
> > other. There is no way to publish without altering
or effecting the
IP...
>
> Not really true, Todd.
OK so its not technically the RIGHTS - its the time clocks
for the ability
to file patents, which are started with the IETF's formal
publicaiton of an
I-D for instance. That is a fact is it not Counsel? The
publication of any
undisclosed IP in a standards disclosure process, like an
I-D for instance
starts those time clocks running... or in Japan prevents any
filings, and
this is because those publications are counted as prior art,
an that's that.
Poof - Done - End of story.
Or would you like to formally go on the record - but I dont
think you are
self-destructive enough to do that now are you Counsel?
> So please let this group get on with designing the
> *copyright* procedures of IETF without confusing it
with *patent* rights.
So let me ask this Mr. Stanford Lecturer... why didnt you
just correct my
mis-speak and notice its not technically "the
rights" - but the the time
clocks which control "the abilty to file for patent
protection" that are
affected by the IETF's publication???
Wouldnt have gotten any mileage out of that now would ya?
>
> To be perfectly clear, I have advocated that the
*copyright* in
> contributions be licensed to IETF and its customers for
all purposes
> mentioned under copyright law.
yeah I bet... So... what has this to do with anything I was
saying?
By the way you used some alarming language here - so define
it for me will
ya?
"Customers" - who are they? In order for there
to be customers they have to
be buying something - and that brings the issue of valuation
back... and
contracts.
"Contribution's???" - Counsel - you are stuck
on the term CONTRIBUTION and
that is not what is happening here. Otherwise if it is the
IETF owes a wad
of back taxes since it isn't a 501.3c at this time.
Customer's buy and dont
contribute.
What is happening in the IETF's standards process is that
people are
exchanging their copyright's against a particular document,
and not anything
further than the republication rights to the documnent. And
they formally
transfer these rights without a signature (which is
questionable) to the
IETF for a chance to vet 'a protocol proposal' in an IETF
WG.
The republication rights are the cost of that participation
then, and this
then is clearly not a gift no matter what the delusional
language appears in
the documents.
> I can see no value to a contributor
> publishing his contribution to IETF and the world and
then telling people
> that they can't freely use it for all purposes.
Here again - Why is it a "contribution to the
WORLD" - where did they come
from? Does participating in the IETF's process mean giving
away all rights
to the IP?
So we are clear on this, that means you advocate, and it is
your aim here
that all technologies should belong to the world and not to
private parties,
is that right???
> What's the point? What's the
> need for any restrictions? (I'm listening for people
on this list to
justify
> their withholding such rights from IETF and its
customers, so that this WG
> can fairly weigh the benefits and the burdens of
whatever *copyright*
rules
> IETF adopts.)
Oh I dont know - To allow for privatized IP to be brought
into the IETF
which it cannot be now. To create a standards process that
allows for
standards to be created without having to give the property
away in the
process.
>
> As for patents, patent licenses can be limited to the
practice of a
specific
> standard without affecting either copyright rights in
the specification
> itself, or the freedom of recipients to modify the
specification to
> implement non-patent-infringing or licensed derivative
works.
This is true - but the issue is that the patentability of
any IP is
partially tied to timely filings and that means that the
First Publication
Date issues must be controlled.
> When properly
> written, such limitations are at least consistent with
open source
licenses
> (although not appreciated by many open source
developers). So let's please
> keep the patent discussion separate from the copyright
discussion.
So are you giving this as formal legal advice???
>
> /Larry
>
> Lawrence Rosen
> Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm
(www.rosenlaw.com)
> Stanford University, Lecturer in Law
> 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
> 707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243
> Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software
Freedom and
> Intellectual Property Law"
(Prentice Hall 2004)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: todd glassey [mailto:todd.glasseyworldnet.att.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 10:00 AM
> > To: Simon Josefsson; Thomas Narten
> > Cc: lrosenrosenlaw.com; ipr-wgietf.org
> > Subject: Re: #1175 Code vs text - second attempt
at resolution
> >
> > Simon - one of the core problems with this WG is
that it seems to think
it
> > can redesign and deploy global IP law and that is
pure merde. The IETF
is
> > constrained by any number of legal frameworks
based on those of its
> > participants and whatever solutions it comes up
with here in IPR must
meet
> > the requirements of all of them... Unless that is,
that the IETF is
going
> > to
> > create a contract specifiying "choice of
law" with its participants.
> >
> > This is the problem of how this WG is operating.
So what are the answers
> > -
> > Simple just answer the following:
> >
> > 1) As I remarked - a stake in the ground
in regard to what IP
> > rights are necessary to participate in the IETF's
Standards Process - So
> > lets answer the question - what rights does the
IETF itself need to
> > advance
> > a standard through its processes. What rights are
mechanically used and
> > what
> > are not???
> >
> > 2) In addition to that - the IETF seems to
want additional rights
> > to
> > the IP beyond what are needed in the Standards
process - and those
> > specifically have value - which is something that
the Submitter should
> > have
> > the option of granting one would think, so how do
we judge that value is
> > and
> > what is it that the IETF is trading for this extra
value???
> >
> > 3) The patent and publishing rights are
tied inextricably to each
> > other. There is no way to publish without altering
or effecting the IP
> > protection capabilities under US and Foreign
Patent Laws - and this is
> > totally intentionally ignored to date in ***all***
ietf operations and
> > control documents. That must change - there are
liabilities of which the
> > IETF is aware of and intentionally ignoring, and
this head-in-the-sand
> > posture will not protect it or the participants
and their sponsors when
> > one
> > of these matters does wind up in court.
> >
> > There are more issues - but these are a good
start.
> >
> > Todd Glassey
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Simon Josefsson" <jasextundo.com>
> > To: "Thomas Narten" <nartenus.ibm.com>
> > Cc: <lrosenrosenlaw.com>;
<ipr-wgietf.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 8:41 AM
> > Subject: Re: #1175 Code vs text - second attempt
at resolution
> >
> >
> > > Thomas Narten <nartenus.ibm.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > "Lawrence Rosen"
<lrosenrosenlaw.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > >> > Some contributors choose not to
contribute their technologies for
> > > >> > purposes other than
standardization.
> > > >
> > > >> Again I ask, why is that necessary
for those contributors?
> > > >
> > > > This question misses the point. We've
had this discussion, and there
> > > > are folk that have this opinion. You (or
I) may not like the answer
> > > > that has been given, but that doesn't
make it "wrong" or "invalid"
or
> > > > one that trying to reopen (with no new
arguments to bring to the
> > > > discusion) is likely to change.
> > >
> > > Do those with that opinion participate in
this WG? I wish they would
> > > give their justification
> > >
> > > > And for better or worse, it is
"IETF" consensus we are after here,
> > > > not the consensus of some other or
larger group.
> > > >
> > > > What I've observed is that the main
desire of this group seems to be
> > > > to produce open standards (emphasis on
_standards_). Open source
> > > > clearly plays a role in this space, but
is one of many
constiuencies,
> > > > and is by no means the only one.
> > >
> > > It seems that this argument runs both ways.
Those who do no wish to
> > > contribute their work under licenses that can
be re-used by free
> > > software developers play a role in open
standards, but is one of many
> > > constituencies, and is by no means the only
one.
> > >
> > > I don't see why the voices from people
arguing for "closed" standards
> > > should have more weight than those who argue
for "open" standards.
> > >
> > > Perhaps one way forward would be to write a
document that explain what
> > > RFC authors can do to help free software
developers use their
> > > documents. For example, what additional
license grant they can put in
> > > their documents. Does anyone think such a
document would belong in
> > > this WG?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Simon
> > >
> > >
_______________________________________________
> > > Ipr-wg mailing list
> > > Ipr-wgietf.org
> > > https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wgietf.org
> https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
|