Re: draft-ietf-ipr-trademarks-00.txt

[Simon Josefsson <jas at extundo.com>]

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf at mit.edu> writes:

> Speaking as an individual (although not as an AD) I cannot support a
> requirement that trademark owners must file a disclosure in order to
> mark terms (tm) or (r) in documents.

What are your reasons?

In particular, what is improved by not having an IPR statement
available?

I assume that trademarks are only needed in IETF documents when there
is a technical need for them.  Otherwise, I can't see how removing the
trademark from the document would affect protocol interoperability,
which is what I imagine the IETF is concerned with.

When a trademark is used for technical reasons, it seems to me that
would have consequences for implementors.  They would need to use the
trademark in order to implement the protocol.  I don't see how not
having an IPR statement would help them.

Generally, I believe it is useful for the IETF to spend some time
making sure standards can be implemented safely by anyone.  When that
goal cannot be reached, which in some situations is understandable, I
believe that the IETF should require IPR statements, to inform
implementors about potential risks.

Leaving the field open for IPR predators do not seem to be consistent
with the IETF missions to me.

Thanks,
Simon

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg