IPR Guidelines for Working Groups

draft-

Scott Brimswb@cisco.com

Goal Help IPR treatment in WGs.

unify “common knowledge” make it more explicit

Look at case studies, extract principles.

This draft interprets and applies what’s in the others – it brings out implications, but it is dependent on the others.

Basics IPR-free and royalty-free are

desirable but not at all costs. Take IPR into account as you would

any other attribute of a technology.

Importance varies by case. Don’t ignore IPR when you find it.

Certainty About Claims is Unattainable Four scenarios:

submitter of draft points out its IPR issues non-submitter participant notes own claims non-submitter participant notes other’s claims non-participant discovers own technology used

and may notify IETF … at any time during the life of a standard. Claims can be challenged. Licensing terms are more critical than

claims.

Keep Asking Anyway Solicit input when:

first examining a technology. deciding to adopt a draft. choosing between two or more WG

drafts that use different technologies. moving to RFC, proposed standard, etc. deciding to depend on outside

technology.

More Rules of Thumb Fight vagueness, in both claims and

terms. Extrapolate from past experience. What’s the risk if you guess wrong? There’s a fine line between taking

IPR into account and passing judgment as a WG.

Unfinished Case studies? Are WGs freer from legal issues

than I think they are? explicit mention of IPR in conclusions?

Encourage participation. How to keep 3rd party disclosure

from being used to stall progress? Security considerations