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

[Scott W Brim <sbrim at cisco.com>]

On 2/3/2005 18:56, Simon Josefsson allegedly wrote:
> Do this document imply that IETF contributors who use trademarked
> names must add (TM) or (R)?
>
> In section 3, it says:
>
>    If no statement has been filed with the IETF about a term or phrase
>    that is marked in a contribution as a trademark or service mark it
>    is reasonable to assume that references to the term or phrase in
>    product text, documentation and advertising material is permitted
>    but that using the term or phrase as the name of a product requires
>    permission from the holder of the mark.
>
> That paragraph seem unfinished to me.  "Reasonable" to whom?  The
> suggested interpretation is not binding for anyone, nor is it the only
> interpretation.  At worst, this appear to permit abusive or
> discriminatory behavior wrt trademarks.
>
> I would feel more comfortable if all unavoidable uses of (TM) and (R)
> markers within IETF documents were accompanied with a clear IPR
> statement.

Anyone who submits a draft with a TM/SM/R indicated does so because 
(we "reasonably assume") they know that one exists.  They may also 
know that one exists and choose not to indicate it, or choose not to 
file a disclosure (first- or third-party), for various reasons.  There 
are clear rules in law and the IETF about all of this.  The authors of 
the draft are responsible for both of those decisions.  There is no 
need for a rule saying that all TMs/SMs/Rs must be indicated, since 
the relevant issues are already covered elsewhere.  Nor is there a 
*requirement* that every TM/SM/R have an IPR disclosure, because 
third-party disclosures are optional in the IETF, and in some cases 
might be illegal.

Perhaps the vagaries of "reasonable" could be removed.  If something 
is in fact marked, then the paragraph should be about the choices and 
responsibilities of the contributors in doing so.  SOB, does the 
following capture your intent(?):

   Authors may choose not to file a statement with the IETF about a
   term or phrase that is marked in their contribution as a trademark
   or service mark if they conclude that references to the term or
   phrase in product text, documentation and advertising material are
   permitted but that using the term or phrase as the name of a
   product requires permission from the holder of the mark.

(or maybe "may" should be "should"?)

SWB


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