IPR Details
Sangam Das' Statement about IPR related to draft-das-rats-openai-anthropic-extraction

Balasore, Odisha
India

Internet-Draft:

draft-das-rats-openai-anthropic-extraction ("Beyond Attestation: An Execution-Finality Architecture for Controlling Release and Limiting Unauthorized Extraction and Distillation of Sensitive OpenAI and Anthropic Claude Model Information")

Revisions:

00

Number: WO2026150384,WO2026176422,WO2026172336,WO2026150383,WO2026172334,WO2026150382
Inventor: Sangam Das
Title: ARCHITECTING RESILIENCE FOR ENTERPRISE AI: PREVENTING DATA RECONSTRUCTION, EXFILTRATION, AND UNAUTHORIZED CONSEQUENCE IN COMPROMISED AI ENVIRONMENTS
Date: 2006-06-04
Notes: Mothership and Scope of the Portfolio

At the centre of this work is WO2026150382 — HARDWARE-ROOTED EXECUTION-FINALITY SYSTEM FOR SOVEREIGN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE INFRASTRUCTURE, AI-NATIVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND SATELLITES, which I informally refer to as the “Mothership.” The Mothership is an intentionally broad technical disclosure of approximately 8,598 pages, designed to document a foundational execution-finality architecture across numerous technical environments, industries, threat models, implementation paths, and embodiments.

The broader published portfolio also includes specialised developments applying or extending execution-finality principles to particular AI-security, sovereignty, and consequence-control problems, including:

WO2026176422 — ARCHITECTING RESILIENCE FOR ENTERPRISE AI: PREVENTING DATA RECONSTRUCTION, EXFILTRATION, AND UNAUTHORIZED CONSEQUENCE IN COMPROMISED AI ENVIRONMENTS
WO2026172334 — SOVEREIGN AI EXECUTION FINALITY: HARDWARE-ROOTED NATIONAL CONTROL TO PREVENT COVERT INTELLIGENCE DATA EXPORT AND UNAUTHORIZED FRONTIER AND NEURAL AI/AUTONOMOUS ACTS IN CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
WO2026150383 — SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PREVENTING ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE-GENERATED HALLUCINATIONS, UNSUPPORTED OUTPUTS, STALE OUTPUTS, AND UNSAFE AGENTIC ACTS FROM BECOMING EXTERNAL CONSEQUENCES USING CANDIDATE-ACT FINALITY, CONSEQUENCE SIMULATION, ESCALATED CONDITIONAL FINALITY, AND CRYPTOGRAPHIC EXECUTION-DEPENDENCY NON-COMPLETABILITY

These publications illustrate that the execution-finality work is not limited to a single protocol use case. The broader portfolio addresses, among other subjects, protected AI execution, model and data exfiltration, reconstruction resistance, sovereign control of AI infrastructure, critical-infrastructure consequence control, AI-generated output finality, and prevention of unauthorized or unsafe externally effective acts.

The size and breadth of the Mothership were intentional. It was not prepared merely by repeating the same concept. The purpose was to document how a common architectural principle could operate across many different technical contexts, enforcement boundaries, deployment models, and failure conditions.

A central principle running through the work is that computation is not authority. Similarly, possession of data, an identity, credential, token, consent record, telephone number, AI-generated decision, software instruction, or upstream approval should not automatically constitute final authority for an externally effective act. The relevant action should become effective only after the required conditions are validated and the appropriate execution-finality authority is verified at the relevant boundary.

Because the Mothership and the broader portfolio are intentionally broad, they contain or may support many technical claims, embodiments, and implementations that may have no relationship to an eventual IETF standard. Some of those technologies may instead be appropriate for separate commercial deployment, organisation-specific implementation, sovereign or critical-infrastructure deployment, strategic partnerships, or, where appropriate, exclusive licensing arrangements.

For this reason, I cannot reasonably place the entire Mothership application, its patent family, the related published portfolio, or every present or future claim arising from this broader work under a FRAND commitment. Any FRAND commitment should therefore be understood as applying only to those specific patent claims that become Necessary Patent Claims for implementation of an adopted IETF specification under the applicable IETF IPR framework, and not to unrelated claims, embodiments, applications, or non-standardised subject matter within the broader portfolio.

My primary motivation in filing this work has not been financial gain. I filed it because I wanted the technical ideas, architecture, and development effort to be formally recorded and attributable, in the hope that the work may one day form part of the historical record alongside other meaningful inventions and inventors.

I have undertaken this work as an independent inventor, without an external technical team, without external funding, and with limited personal financial resources. The filing costs have been paid from my own personal savings. I do not presently have sufficient financial resources to pursue every possible national-phase filing, prosecution pathway, or jurisdiction in which protection might otherwise be desirable.

I was fully aware of this financial limitation before filing the PCT applications. I nevertheless chose to proceed because creating a formal, public, dated, and attributable technical record of the work was important to me. For the same financial reason, I intentionally handled the international-stage PCT filings without a patent attorney in order to conserve my limited resources for filing fees, publication, prosecution, and possible national-phase entry.

Commercial licensing opportunities would of course be welcome, but financial return has not been the sole or primary reason for making these filings. Recognition of the technical contribution, preservation of the development record, and the possibility that the architecture may contribute to future technologies, public infrastructure, safety systems, and technical standards are equally important objectives.

IETF / FRAND Licensing Position

My FRAND commitment is therefore strictly limited to those specific patent claims that become Necessary Patent Claims for implementation of a specification actually adopted by the IETF, in accordance with the applicable IETF IPR framework.

For clarity, disclosure of a patent application to the IETF does not mean that every claim contained in that application, related priority application, PCT filing, patent family, or broader portfolio is being offered on FRAND terms.

Only those specific claims that are actually necessary for implementing the relevant adopted IETF specification are intended to fall within the FRAND commitment.

Claims relating to broader architectural concepts, alternative implementations, optional functionality, different industries, organisation-specific deployments, proprietary implementations, or other subject matter that is not necessary for implementation of the relevant IETF specification remain outside this FRAND commitment.

Those non-standard-essential claims may therefore remain available for separate licensing arrangements, including ordinary commercial licences and, where appropriate, exclusive licences for particular implementations, fields, organisations, or applications.

Accordingly, my position is that the claims necessary to implement an adopted IETF specification may be licensed on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, while claims that remain outside the standard retain their independent licensing and commercial status.

I do not intend this statement to suggest that the IETF itself determines or certifies the essentiality of individual patent claims. The commitment is directed to claims that qualify as Necessary Patent Claims for implementation of the relevant adopted IETF specification under the applicable IETF framework.

Purpose of the FRAND Approach

My purpose in adopting this approach is to create a practical balance.

If part of my work becomes necessary for an open technical standard, I do not want the relevant patent rights to become an unreasonable barrier to implementation of that standard. FRAND licensing can provide a mechanism through which implementers can obtain access to genuinely necessary claims on fair and non-discriminatory terms.

At the same time, I am an independent inventor funding this work largely from my own savings. Preserving the commercial value of inventions and claims that are not incorporated into an IETF standard is important because licensing income from such technology may help support continued research, patent prosecution, national-phase filings, technical development, and the creation of further inventions.

My broader objective in seeking FRAND treatment for genuinely standard-essential claims is therefore not simply to collect royalties. It is also to establish a sustainable path through which standardisation can encourage adoption of useful technology while allowing me to continue inventing, developing, documenting, and protecting additional technologies in the future.

Voluntary Royalty-Free Public-Interest Licensing Position

Separately, and entirely as a voluntary public-interest commitment, I am willing to consider granting royalty-free licences to sovereign governments and public authorities for strictly non-commercial public-interest uses, including public safety, emergency response, disaster management, child safety, critical-infrastructure protection, and similar genuine governmental or public-interest purposes.

This voluntary position does not itself grant any licence and should not be interpreted as an automatic, unconditional, irrevocable, or generally available royalty-free licence.

Any such royalty-free permission would arise only through a separate written licensing agreement entered into with the relevant sovereign government or public authority. The written agreement may define the applicable patent rights, technology, project, permitted purpose, duration, territory, safeguards, beneficiaries, and scope of use.

Such a voluntary royalty-free arrangement would not automatically extend to commercial exploitation, commercial resale, sublicensing, unrelated private-sector activity, or contractors using the technology outside the expressly authorised governmental or public-interest purpose.

This voluntary sovereign and public-interest licensing policy is separate from the IETF FRAND commitment and does not modify the licensing position applicable to ordinary implementers of an IETF specification.

Reservation of Rights

Nothing in this statement is intended to constitute a general patent waiver, abandonment of patent rights, dedication of the portfolio to the public, unrestricted royalty-free licence, or FRAND commitment covering claims that are not Necessary Patent Claims for implementation of the relevant adopted IETF specification.

The intended balance is straightforward:

Claims necessary for an adopted IETF standard → available under the applicable FRAND commitment.

Claims not necessary for that standard → remain outside FRAND and retain their independent licensing status.

Non-commercial sovereign and public-interest use → may be considered voluntarily on a royalty-free basis through a separate written agreement.

My broader objective remains to preserve an attributable record of the technical contribution, obtain appropriate recognition for the work, support responsible adoption where standardisation occurs, and preserve sufficient freedom and resources to continue developing further inventions in the future.