Network Working Group S. Bradner
Internet-Draft Harvard U.
Editor
October 2002
Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology
<draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-00.txt>
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
of Section 10 of RFC 2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Abstract
The IETF policies about intellectual property rights (IPR), such as
patent rights, claimed relative to technologies developed in the IETF
are designed to ensure that IETF working groups and participants have
as complete information about any IPR constraints on a technical
proposal as possible. The policies are also intended to benefit the
Internet community and the public at large, while respecting the
legitimate rights of IPR holders. This memo details the IETF
policies concerning IPR related to technology worked on within the
IETF. It also describes the objectives that the policies are designed
to meet.
Portions Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002)
1. Introduction
It is becoming increasingly common for IETF working groups to have to
Bradner [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IP in IETF Technology October 2002
deal with claims of intellectual property rights, such as patent
rights, with regards to technology under discussion in the working
group. These claims can come at any point in the IETF process from
before the first Internet Draft has been submitted to after a RFC has
been published and the working group has been closed down. The
claims can come from people submitting technical proposals as
Internet Drafts, on mailing lists or at meetings, from other people
participating in the working group or from 3rd parties who find out
that the work is going or has gone on. The claims can be based on
granted patents or on patent applications. In some cases IPR claims
can be disingenuous, made to affect the standards process rather than
to inform.
RFC 2026 section 10 established three basic principals regarding the
IETF dealing with claims of intellectual property rights:
a/ the IETF will make no determination about the validity of any
particular IPR claim
b/ the IETF can decide to use technology for which IPR claims have
been made if it decides that such a use is warranted
c/ in order for the working group and the rest of the IETF to have
the information needed to make an informed decision about the use
of a particular technology, all persons, with certain exceptions,
must disclose the existence of any IPR that they believe relates
to the working group deliberations in order to participate in any
discussions relating to the IPR. This includes copyrights, patents
and patent applications.
In the years since RFC 2026 was published there have been a number of
times when the exact intent of Section 10 has been the subject of
vigorous debate within the IETF community. The aim of this document
is to clarify various ambiguities in Section 10 of [RFC 2026] that
led to these debates and to amplify the policy in order to clarify
what the IETF is, or should be, doing.
Section 2, 3 and 4 of this document address the intellectual property
issues previously covered by Section 10 of RFC 2026. Sections 5 thru
13 then explain the rationale for these provisions, including some of
the clarifications that have been understood since the adoption of
RFC 2026. The rules and procedures set out in this document are not
intended to substantially modify or alter IETF's or ISOC's current
policy toward IPR in the context of the IETF standards process.
A companion document [IETF SUB] deals with rights in the documents
that are submitted to the IETF, including the right of IETF and its
participants to publish and create derivative works of those
documents. This document is not intended to address those issues.
Bradner [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IP in IETF Technology October 2002
This document is not intended as legal advice. If you would like a
legal interpretation of your rights or the rights of the IETF in any
contributions you make, you are advised to consult your own legal
advisor
2. Contributions in the IETF
2.1. General Policy
In all matters of intellectual property rights, the intent is to
benefit the Internet community and the public at large, while
respecting the legitimate rights of others.
2.2. Rights and Permissions
2.2.1. All Contributions
By submission of a contribution, each person actually submitting the
contribution is deemed to agree to the following terms and conditions
on their own behalf, on behalf of the organization (if any) the
contributor represents and on behalf of the owners of any
intellectual property rights claimed in the contribution. Where a
submission identifies contributors in addition to the contributor(s)
who provide the actual submission, the actual submitter(s) represent
that each other named contributor was made aware of and agreed to
accept the same terms and conditions on their own behalf, on behalf
of any organization s/he may represent and any known owner of any
intellectual property rights in the contribution. This agreement
must be acknowledged by including in the header of the contribution
one of the statements in section 3.2 of [IETF SUB].
A. The contributor represents that he or she has disclosed the
existence of any intellectual property rights which cover or may
cover the technology, specifications or standards described in the
contribution that (1) are owned, controlled or enforceable by the
contributor or his or her employer, or any affiliate thereof, and
(2) are reasonably and personally known to the contributor. The
contributor does not represent that he or she personally knows of
all potentially pertinent intellectual property rights owned or
claimed by the his or her employer (if any) or by third parties.
B. The contributor represents that there are no limits to the
contributor's ability to make the grants acknowledgments and
agreements above that are reasonably and personally known to the
contributor.
3. IETF Actions
(A) When any intellectual property are known, or claimed, with
respect to any technology, specification, or standard described in
an IETF document , and such intellectual property rights are
Bradner [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IP in IETF Technology October 2002
brought to the attention of the IESG, the IESG shall not publish
the IETF document without including in the document a note
indicating the existence of such intellectual property rights, or
claimed intellectual property rights. Where implementations are
required before advancement of a standards track specification,
only implementations that have, by statement of the implementers,
taken such intellectual property rights into account shall be
considered for the purpose of showing the adequacy of the
specification.
(B) The IESG disclaims any responsibility for identifying the
existence of or for evaluating the applicability of any claimed
IPR to any IETF technology, specification or standard, and will
take no position on the validity or scope of any such intellectual
property rights.
(C) Where the IESG has been informed of claimed intellectual
property rights under (A), the IETF Executive Director shall
request from the claimant of such rights, a written assurance that
upon approval by the IESG of the relevant Internet standards track
specification(s), all persons will be able to obtain the right to
implement, use, distribute and exercise other rights with respect
to an Implementing Technology under openly specified, reasonable,
non-discriminatory terms unless such a statement has already been
submitted. The Working Group proposing the use of the technology
with respect to which the intellectual property rights are claimed
may assist the IETF Executive Director in this effort. The
results of this procedure shall not, in themselves, block
advancement of a specification along the standards track. A
working group may take into consideration the results of this
procedure in evaluating the technology and the IESG may defer
approval when a delay may facilitate obtaining such assurances.
The results will, however, be recorded by the IETF Executive
Director, and be made available. The IESG may also direct that a
summary of the results be placed on-line.
3.1 Determination of Reasonable and Non-discriminatory Terms
The IESG will not make any explicit determination that the assurance
of reasonable and non-discriminatory terms for the use of an
Implementing Technology has been fulfilled in practice. It will
instead use the normal requirements for the advancement of Internet
Standards to verify that the terms for use are reasonable. If the
two unrelated implementations of the specification that are required
to advance from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard have been
produced by different organizations or individuals or if the
"significant implementation and successful operational experience"
required to advance from Draft Standard to Standard has been achieved
the IESG will presume that the terms are reasonable and to some
Bradner [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IP in IETF Technology October 2002
degree, non- discriminatory. This presumption may be challenged at
any time, including during the Last-Call period by sending email to
the IESG.
4. Notices to be included in all contributions for publication
The following notices should be included in all submissions for
publication as an Internet Draft.
(A) Disclaimer of validity:
"The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
in this document or the extent to which any license under such
rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that
it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in
standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found
in BCP-XX.
Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
at http://www.ietf.org/ipr or from the IETF Secretariat."
(B) The IETF encourages all interested parties to bring to its
attention, at the earliest possible time, the existence of any
intellectual property rights pertaining to Internet Standards. For
this purpose, each standards document shall include the following
invitation:
"The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its
attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or
other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be
required to practice this standard. Please address the
information to the IETF Secretariat at iesg-
secretary@ietf.org."
(C) Where the IESG has been made aware at the time of publication of
intellectual property rights claimed with respect to an IETF
document, or the technology described or referenced therein, such
document shall contain the following notice:
"The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights
Bradner [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IP in IETF Technology October 2002
claimed in regard to some or all of the specification contained
in this document. For more information consult the online list
of claimed rights at http://www.ietf.org/ipr."
5. Definitions
5.1 contribution: See [RFC SUB] section 4.1.
5.2 IETF document: See [RFC SUB] sec 4.4.
5.3 IPR or intellectual property rights: means any proprietary,
intellectual or industrial property rights, including, but not
limited to, patent, copyright, trade secret, design, utility model,
invention registration, database and data rights, whether such rights
arise from a registration or renewal thereof, or an application
therefore, in each case anywhere in the world.
5.4 Implementing Technology: means a technology which implements an
IETF specification or standard.
6. Disclosure
6.1 How to make a disclosure
Disclosure of IPR claims is made by sending an email message to iesg-
secretary@ietf.org. It is also a good idea to send a copy of the
disclosure to the mailing list of the relevant working group.
6.2 Contents of a disclosure
The disclosure must be as specific as possible both in the IPR claim
that is being made and as to the IETF contributions to which the
claim applies. The disclosure should list the registration numbers
of any patents and the file numbers of any patent applications which
instantiate the IPR claims being made. If the claim is based on
unpublished patent applications then that should be stated. The
disclosure should also list the specific IETF documents or activity
affected and what sections of those documents are affected. Note that
this requirement is not is not satisfied by including a blanket
statement of possible IPR on every submission since the aim of the
disclosure is to provide information about specific IPR claims
against specific IETF documents. IT is also not satisfied by a
blanket statement of willingness to license all IPR under fair and
non-discriminatory terms for the same reason.
6.3 Rights detailed in a disclosure
Since IPR disclosures will be used by IETF working groups during
their evaluation of alternative technical solutions it is desirable,
though not required, that an IPR disclosure include information about
licensing of the IPR in case implementation of the technology
described in the final RFC is judged to require a license. It should
Bradner [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IP in IETF Technology October 2002
be noted that disclosures without licensing statements are likely to
discourage a working group from adopting the technology.
The following are examples of licensing terms used in past
disclosures to the IETF.
a/ Free License: The IPR claimant will grant any applicant a non-
exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free license
to make, use, sell, import and exercise all other rights with
respect to products or processes covered by the listed IPR. The
terms of this license are available for review on the IPR
claimant's web site.
b/ Restricted open license: The IPR claimant offers a Free License
to the IPR under certain constraints. Constraints that have been
seen in the past include a restriction of the free licenses to
only cover implementations of a specific IETF RFC or that limit
the Free Licenses to people or organizations who do not try to
limit the ability IPR claimant to implement the specific RFC
because of other IPR claims. See [RFC 1822] and [RFC 1988] for
examples.
c/ fair and non discriminatory terms: The IPR claimant offers to
license the technology under fair and non-discriminatory terms.
d/ a refusal to license: The IPR claimant will refuse to license the
technology.
Other licensing terms are possible, the above are included as
examples.
6.4 When is a disclosure required
Disclosures are required whenever enforcement of the claimed IPR in
question would directly or indirectly benefit the individual or their
employer or sponsor (if any) and where enforcement of the claimed IPR
would have any effect on the ability to implement a technology under
discussion in the IETF.
7. "reasonably and personally known"
The phrase "reasonably and personally known" is used in section two
above. It should be read to refer to something the individual knows
personally or, because of the job the individual holds, would
reasonably be expected to know. This wording is used to indicate
that an organization cannot purposely keep an individual in the dark
about patents or patent applications just to avoid the notification
requirement. But this requirement should not be interpreted as
requiring an organization to perform a patent search every time one
of its employees submits an Internet Draft.
Bradner [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IP in IETF Technology October 2002
8. Failure to provide notice
There are cases where individuals are not permitted by their
employers to disclose the existence or substance of patent
applications or other IPR. Since disclosure is required for anyone
submitting documents or participating in IETF discussions, a person
who does not disclose IPR for this, or any other reason, must not
participate in these IETF activities with respect to technologies
that he or she reasonably or personally knows to be covered by IPR
which he or she is not permitted to disclose. Participating in IETF
discussions about a technology without disclosing relevant IPR that
is reasonably or personally known to the individual is a violation of
IETF process.
9. The timing of providing notice
Timely notification of IPR claims is important because working groups
need to have as much information as it can while they are evaluating
alternative solutions.
9.1 IPR claimed in contributions to the IETF
If an author, contributor, or editor of a document being submitted
for publication as an Internet Draft knows of IPR related to the
technology covered by the submission, the author must submit an IPR
disclosure at the same time if there is not already such a disclosure
on file from the author or his or her employer or sponsor (if any)
which specifically covers the new submission. For example, if the
submission is an update to one for which an IPR disclosure has
already been made and the applicability of the disclosure is not
changed by the revision, then no new disclosure needs to be made.
But if the document is a new one or if the revision changes the
technology, specification or standard such that it would be covered
by new or different IPR claims then a disclosure must be made. A
disclosure should also be made if the revised contribution negates a
previous IPR claim. If the submitter learns of relevant IPR in their
organization, for example a new patent application, after the
submission he or she must make a disclosure as soon as possible after
learning of the IPR.
9.2. IPR claimed in contributions by others
If an active working group participant believes that IPR owned by the
participant or his or her employer or sponsor (if any) affects an
IETF contribution submitted by someone else (including already
published Internet Drafts or RFCs) then the participant must make an
IPR disclosure as soon as possible after the realization.
9.3. IPR known by a 3rd party
Under section 3(B) of this document 3rd parties that have information
about possible IPR related to IETF contributions are invited to
Bradner [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IP in IETF Technology October 2002
notify the IETF by sending an email message to iesg-
secretary@ietf.org. Such a notice should be sent as soon as possible
after the 3rd party realizes the connection.
10. Evaluating alternative technologies in an IETF working group
In general, it can be assumed that IETF working groups will prefer
technologies with no known IPR claims or, for technologies with
claims, an offer of free licensing. But IETF working groups have the
discretion to adopt technology with a commitment of fair and non-
discriminatory terms, or even with no licensing commitment, if they
feel that this technology is superior enough to alternatives with
fewer IPR claims or free licensing to outweigh the potential cost of
the licenses.
It should also be noted that the absence of IPR claims is not the
same thing as the knowledge that there will be no such claims in the
future. People or organizations not currently involved in the IETF
or organizations who discover IPR they feel to be relevant in their
patent portfolios can make IPR claims at any time.
It should also be noted that the validity and enforceability of any
IPR may be challenged for legitimate reasons, and the mere existence
of an IPR claim should not automatically be taken to mean that the
underlying IPR is valid and enforceable. Although the IETF can make
no actual determination of validity or applicability of any
particular IPR claim, it is reasonable that a working group will rely
on their own opinions of the applicability or validity of
intellectual property rights in their evaluation of alternative
technologies.
11. Change control for technologies
The IETF must have change control over the technology described in
any standards track documents in order to fix problems that may be
discovered or to produce other derivative works. Submissions to the
IETF in which the submitters do not grant change control to the IETF
must include the appropriate Internet Draft statement from [IETF SUB]
section 3.2.
In some cases the developer of a proprietary technology may decide to
hand over to the IETF the right to evolve the technology (a.k.a
"change control"). The implementation of an agreement between the
IETF and the developer of the technology can be complex. (See [RFC
1790] and [RFC 2339] for examples.)
Note that an IETF standards track document can make normative
reference to proprietary technology in some cases, for example, when
making parameter assignments or encapsulations. (e.g., "parameter
Bradner [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IP in IETF Technology October 2002
value 1234 refers to proprietary technology A" or "proprietary
technology B can be encapsulated using the techniques described in
RFC XYZ.")
12. Licensing requirements to advance standards track documents
[RFC 2026] section 4.1.2 states: "If patented or otherwise controlled
technology is required for implementation, the separate
implementations must also have resulted from separate exercise of the
licensing process." A key word in this text is "required." The mere
existence of an IPR claim does not necessarily mean that licenses are
actually required in order to implement the technology. Section
3.3.3 of this document should be taken to cover the case where there
are multiple implementations and but none of the implementers have
felt that they needed to license the technology and there have are no
indications that the IPR claimant will try to enforce its claim.
13. Mention of IPR claims in IETF documents
Submissions to the IETF where there are known IPR claims must include
the appropriate text from section 4 above. They should not contain
any mention of specific claims. All specific IPR claims must be
submitted as described in section 6. Specific IPR claims should not
be in the affected documents because the reader can be mislead. The
inclusion of a particular IPR claim in an IETF document could be
interpreted to mean that the IETF has formed an opinion on the
validity of the IPR claim. The reader could also be mislead to think
that the included IPR claims are the only IPR claims the IETF has
received concerning the document. Readers should always refer to the
on-line web page to get a full list of IPR claims received by the
IETF.
14 Security Considerations
Documents describing IETF processes, such as this one, do not have an
impact on the security of the network infrastructure or of Internet
applications.
15. References
15.1 Normative references
[2026] Bradner, S. (ed), "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", RFC 2026, October 1996
[IETF SUB] work in progress: draft-iprwg-submission-00.txt
15.2 Informative references
[RFC 1790] Cerf, V., "An Agreement between the Internet Society and
Bradner [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IP in IETF Technology October 2002
Sun Microsystems, Inc. in the Matter of ONC RPC and XDR
Protocols", RFC 1790, April 1995
[RFC 1822] Lowe, J., "A Grant of Rights to Use a Specific IBM patent
with Photuris", RFC 1822, August 1995
[1988] McAnally, G., D. Gilbert, J. Flick, "Conditional Grant of
Rights to Specific Hewlett-Packard Patents In Conjunction With the
Internet Engineering Task Force's Internet-Standard Network
Management Framework", RFC 1988, August 1996
[RFC 2339] The Internet Society, Sun Microsystems, "An Agreement
Between the Internet Society, the IETF, and Sun Microsystems, Inc.
in the matter of NFS V.4 Protocols"
16. Editors Address
Scott Bradner
Harvard University
29 Oxford St.
Cambridge MA, 02138
sob@harvard.edu +1 617 495 3864
17. Full copyright statement:
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). Except as set forth
below, authors retain all their rights.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for rights
in submissions defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/S HE
Bradner [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IP in IETF Technology October 2002
REPRESENTS (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Bradner [Page 12]