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

[Simon Josefsson <jas at extundo.com>]

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

>>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson <jas at extundo.com> writes:
>
>     Simon> How much money would you estimate that the SECSH WG spent
>     Simon> on evaluating the unclear trademark situation?  Is it
>     Simon> higher than 5000/200=25 dollars?
>
>     Simon> If Bill's understanding that "many [SECSH] WG participants
>     Simon> [...]  personally investigated" the SECSH trademark
>     Simon> validity is correct, then it appears to me that requiring a
>     Simon> trademark IPR statement before adding trademark designators
>     Simon> to documents would avoid, or at least simplify, similar
>     Simon> problems in other WGs.
>
> Except that I don't believe your proposed requirement would actually
> avoid wasting this time.  I think it might make it even more likely.

My proposal would include the (preferred) option of not adding (tm)
and (r), or trademark acknowledgments, at all.  I hope that point
wasn't lost in the discussion.

Since, as far as I know, these identifiers are not required by any law
in any jurisdiction, the preferred approach would "waste" as little
time as possible for everyone.

If someone really want to have the identifiers, or an acknowledge, in
a document (which seem to be the case in SECSH), with my proposal,
they would have to "waste" time preparing the IPR statement, or they
would have to make do without the identifiers/acknowledgment.

Thanks,
Simon

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