[cabfpub] Draft Working Group Charter for Network Security WG

Ben Wilson bwilson at mozilla.com
Fri Nov 19 16:27:29 UTC 2021

Hi Dimitris,

Our IPR Policy is not perfect, so it doesn't have a solution for every
possible scenario. It was written with a goal of balancing the interests of
IP holders and the Forum membership. From the IPR Policy, "Working Groups
will ordinarily not approve a Guideline if they are aware that Essential
Claims exist that are not available on RF terms. Members are encouraged to
bring to the attention of the applicable Working Group any known patent or
pending patent applications of other organizations (Members or non-Members)
that might contain Essential Claims." (IPR Policy 2)  This means there is
an obligation (some might say it is only a moral obligation) on all members
(and hopefully notice to anyone else) to alert the Forum of any potential
IP conflicts. It is meant to discourage "submarine patents" that stay
hidden and are brought out only when someone in the industry starts to
implement an Essential Claim in the patent.

In the case of the proposed NetSec WG:

If the Member is a member of the NetSec WG, then they implicitly grant a
royalty-free license to the IP. (IPR Policy 3.1)
If the Member is not a member of the NetSec WG, then they could claim that
anybody implementing an Essential Claim is infringing on their IP.
As soon as the Forum is aware of a potential Essential Claim, then a
"Patent Advisory Group" will be convened to resolve the situation and
"avoid anticipated patent problems". (IPR Policy 7.1)

Notice: This is not legal advice. If you have any further concerns, please
consult your attorney. 😁


On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 4:40 AM Dimitris Zacharopoulos (HARICA) <
dzacharo at harica.gr> wrote:

> On 19/11/2021 12:03 π.μ., Tim Hollebeek wrote:
> The problem is that you would forcing IPR review responsibilities onto a
> bunch of people who explicitly tried to avoid it by not joining the working
> group(s) in question.
> This is problematic because “IPR review” isn’t just a review – you’re
> granting IP rights if you don’t make a declaration.  This is exactly why
> some companies don’t join some groups – so they aren’t interested making IP
> grants or even disclosures for subject areas they don’t want to participate
> in.  And I don’t blame them … why do all that work for no benefit to their
> company?
> -Tim
> I naively thought that once an organization is being notified about a
> possible IP conflict, they MUST review in order to claim possible IP
> rights. Isn't this the process we follow at a specific WG level? What
> happens if a Member neglects to review a Maintenance Guideline and later
> finds out that they had IP rights that have made it into a Final Guideline?
> Just curious :)
> Dimitris.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20211119/bfebfdb2/attachment.html>

More information about the Public mailing list