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

[Simon Josefsson <jas at extundo.com>]

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no> writes:

> --On 5. februar 2005 01:07 +0100 Simon Josefsson <jas at extundo.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> My personal estimate is that it takes 15 min of processing time at the 
> secretariat to deal with an IPR statement. (the example numbers I heard 
> were 2 minutes for an IPR statement coming in by Webform and 20 mins for 
> one coming in by email - YMMV).
>
> I also guesstimate that it takes a trademark owner about one hour to get 
> the information together to file an IPR notice. This is probably VERY low 
> for the first notice he has to generate, but the time should fall sharply 
> once the trademark owner learns the rules.
>
> If we have 200 trademarks mentioned in RFCs per year, each requiring one 
> IPR filing, we have imposed a burden on the secretariat of 50 working 
> hours, and a burden on IETF participants of 200 working hours.
>
> If we pick a random number of 100 dollars per working hour, fully loaded, 
> the financial burden of your "simple" requirement is 5000 dollars - or the 
> total secretariat contribution of approx. 25 IETF attendees.

How much money would you estimate that the SECSH WG spent on
evaluating the unclear trademark situation?  Is it higher than
5000/200=25 dollars?

If Bill's understanding that "many [SECSH] WG participants [...]
personally investigated" the SECSH trademark validity is correct, then
it appears to me that requiring a trademark IPR statement before
adding trademark designators to documents would avoid, or at least
simplify, similar problems in other WGs.

> Of course, we could easily waste more than 200 IETF participant working 
> hours discussing the requirement.....

I am sorry you view it as wasting time.

Thanks,
Simon

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