IPR Guidelines for Working Groups draft- Scott Brim

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 3 rd party disclosure from being used to stall progress? Security considerations