Subject: [apps-discuss] Status of "Spam reporting using IMAP: SREP" draft

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:29:35 +0100

Dear WG participants,
Some time ago WG chairs have issues acceptance call for:
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap-02

I think WG Chairs failed to emphasize that RIM filed an IPR declaration 
on the document:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1609/

Chairs would like to confirm that the WG is still interested in working 
on the document in presence of this IPR declaration.

Thank you,
Alexey, as an APPSAWG co-chair

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 30 Jun 2012 04:22:04 -0000

>on the document in presence of this IPR declaration.

Hmmn.  The patent application is unpublished so we don't know what it
says, nor whether a patent will ever be issued.  RIM offers a RAND
license, not necessarily a free one.

The current draft is (to my taste) overly complicated; if we end up
publishing something, it will probably cut out a fair amount of what's
in the draft, so it's quite possible that whatever the patent
application covers wouldn't end up in an RFC.  The fundamental idea,
send a notification to a host telling it that a message in its store
is or isn't spam, would seem to me to be unpatentable due to a
mountain of prior art.

Overall summary: who the heck knows.  Anyone else?

R's,
John

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 06:52:26 -0400

--On Friday, June 29, 2012 19:29 +0100 Alexey Melnikov
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I think WG Chairs failed to emphasize that RIM filed an IPR
> declaration on the document:
> 
> Chairs would like to confirm that the WG is still interested
> in working on the document in presence of this IPR declaration.

IANAL, but...

(1) I have no idea what "subject to rights of reciprocity and
suspension or termination for assertion against a third party"
means in practice. In particular, not being a lawyer, I have no
idea if RIM is asserting that they would revoke the license to
practice the claimed invention if someone asserted any IPR claim
against RIM or only one associated with this particular
technology.  I am not asking for an interpretation here, or a
discussion of that language.   But I am anxious about our taking
on an individual draft that is claimed to be encumbered
especially since...

(2) This says it is an unpublished application, which means that
participants in the IETF have way to examine exactly what is
being claimed and hence no basis to evaluate those claims.

Unless someone not associated with RIM can successfully argue
that it is urgent to process this work in the IETF, I would
prefer to defer it until either the licensing language is
crystal clear (even to non-specialists), the final claims can be
examined, or, preferably, both.

Just IMO, of course.
     john

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 09:06:54 -0400

> on the document in presence of this IPR declaration.

   I find myself put off by the "Right to Sell" section of the disclosure,
where they ask each buyer of a "product or service implementing any such
patent claims" to agree to terms including "supension or termination"

   Myself, I wouldn't put much effort into this with that hanging over
my head. :^(

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 30 Jun 2012 15:27:24 -0000

>technology.

More likely the latter, but ...

>examined, or, preferably, both.

The application will be published in December.  Perhaps we can revisit
it then.  If anyone from RIM thinks it's more urgent, they can of
course try and persuade the company to publish it now, but given
what's going on at RIM, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Worst case scenario: a patent is granted, RIM continues its downward
spiral and the patent portfolio is sold to a someone like Intellectual
Ventures who say "IPR disclosure?  What's that?  We never made one."

R's,
John

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:11:36 -0400

--On Saturday, June 30, 2012 15:27 +0000 John Levine
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> means in practice. In particular, not being a lawyer, I have
>> no idea if RIM is asserting that they would revoke the
>> license to practice the claimed invention if someone asserted
>> any IPR claim against RIM or only one associated with this
>> particular technology.
> 

But, as you presumably know, some companies have written
"reciprocity" clauses that basically take the position that any
challenge to anything in their patent portfolio revokes all
rights and licenses.   I won't make likelihood estimates, but we
need to understand that the language appears to be ambiguous on
that matter.

>> crystal clear (even to non-specialists), the final claims can
>> be examined, or, preferably, both.
> 
> The application will be published in December.  Perhaps we can
> revisit it then.  If anyone from RIM thinks it's more urgent,
> they can of course try and persuade the company to publish it
> now, but given what's going on at RIM, I wouldn't hold my
> breath.

At the risk of repeating myself, I would be unhappy about the
IETF's moving ahead with this without either clarity about the
proposed licensing terms, clarity about the claims, or both.
Examining the question after the application is published
(whether that is December or, under some special arrangement,
sooner) would seem reasonable as long as it is understood that
such a examination should not be taken as an automatic "yes"
then.
 
> Worst case scenario: a patent is granted, RIM continues its
> downward spiral and the patent portfolio is sold to a someone
> like Intellectual Ventures who say "IPR disclosure?  What's
> that?  We never made one."

While I don't think we need to engage in that sort of
speculation to reach a conclusion about what the WG should do
today, I cannot disagree with your scenario analysis.

  john

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 30 Jun 2012 16:18:32 -0400

> rights and licenses.

Quite true.  I would want to see the license they're offering before 
coming to any conclusions, but that's pointless until we know what the 
patent application covers.

> such a examination should not be taken as an automatic "yes"

Right.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.