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

[Simon Josefsson <jas at extundo.com>]

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

> --On søndag, februar 06, 2005 22:32:48 +0100 Simon Josefsson 
> <jas at extundo.com> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> It was lost.

My fault.

> But that option (telling people to not mention trademarks they know about) 
> sounds to me like saying "don't mark this rathole - as long as you don't 
> know that it's there, you won't stumble into it".

But why should all trademarks in a document necessarily be marked?

I grep:ed for "Windows" in RFCs, and it is used in several documents.
Windows is a trademark, and probably even a widely known one.  I fail
to see how that become a rathole.

My point is this: Identifying and acknowledging trademarks waste time,
don't do it.  When someone want to force their way to add identifiers
or acknowledgments, put the onus on them and have them do work by
filing IPR statements.

> And it wouldn't have saved one iota of time in the SECSH group, I think.

It seems to me that with my proposal a WG would have two options:

1) The term X is used in the document, without identifiers or
   acknowledgment.

2) The term X is used in the document, with identifiers and/or
   acknowledgment, and the contributor has to prepare an IPR
   statement.

If I understood Bill correctly this time (feel free to correct me),
the SECSH problem was that a contributor did not file a proper IPR
statement, but still wanted the trademark to be identified or
acknowledgment, because of some argument that trademark owners must
always identify their own trademarks.  The WG couldn't solve the
problem by referring to IETF policies, but had to spend time
evaluating the situation.

Regards,
Simon

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