1 / 7

IPR Guidelines for Working Groups

This draft aims to unify and clarify the treatment of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in Working Groups (WGs). It emphasizes the significance of recognizing IPR as a critical attribute of technology while finding a balance between promoting royalty-free standards and acknowledging legal constraints. The document outlines scenarios where IPR issues may arise, encourages proactive input solicitation, and provides insights based on case studies. It seeks to enhance transparency around IPR implications, urging WGs to navigate legal complexities without stalling progress in standard development.

verity
Download Presentation

IPR Guidelines for Working Groups

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IPR Guidelines for Working Groups draft- Scott Brim swb@cisco.com

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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

More Related