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

[Simon Josefsson <jas at extundo.com>]

Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld at sun.com> writes:

> On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 12:10, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> If a WG reached consensus on acknowledging a trademark, which I
>> thought is what you said earlier for this example,
>
> That's not what I said.
>
> The WG was asked by the trademark owner/original author to rename the
> protocol; instead the WG reached consensus that renaming to avoid the
> trademark was unnecessary.

Thank you for clarifying.

> As I understand it, trademark law puts a burden on trademark owners to mark
> their own trademarks in certain contexts.

Do you, or anyone else, have further references on this?

One question is whether RFCs are included in those contexts.

> Passing through trademark identifiers seems only fair.

I'm not contending that.  I have suggested that if trademark
identifiers are passed through, there should be an IPR statement on
the use of that trademark.

Doing so would be simple for the IETF, and would go a long way to
improve the situation for me, and presumably other free software
implementors.

I believe it is sound advice to be skeptical about the motives of
anyone who submit a protocol standard that contain trademarks but do
not want to make the trademark usage permission public.  Going through
lengths and update RFC 3667 to protect that behavior does not seem
like a good idea to me.

Thanks,
Simon

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