Re: On not using (r) and (tm)

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb at cs.columbia.edu>]

In message <tslekfsc6ck.fsf at cz.mit.edu>, Sam Hartman writes:
>>>>>> "John" == John Levine <johnl at iecc.com> writes:
>
>    John> In some cases, document authors may wish to note trademarks
>    John> that they or their own employers claim.  In that case I
>    John> would suggest that they still don't get to put (r) or (tm)
>    John> in the text, but in the goop at the end of the document they
>    John> MAY put a sentence or two like this:
>
>    John>  KLUDGE is Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by
>    John> the Kludge Computer Corp.
>
>    John> or
>
>    John>  KLUDGE is claimed as a trademark by the Kludge Computer
>    John> Corp.
>
>I have a preference for this approach.  No IPR disclosures, just a
>sentence in the document.
>
>It's my understanding that this working group already reached a
>consensus against that approach before I started following.
>

No.  Given that at the time I was both a Security AD and the IPR WG 
chair, I was asked what to do.  After a lot of reading of 3667/3668 and 
talking with others, I concluded that (a) the answer according to our 
procedures was *probably* to use the (TM) or (R) -- those are 
explicitly mentioned in 3667 -- but to put any more details in an IPR 
disclosure, and (b) the question was sufficiently murky that this WG 
should approve a document clarifying it.  The issue was made even more 
complex because there are recent RFCs -- see 3805, which is later than 
3667/3668 -- that contain explicit trademark statements.

		--Prof. Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb



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