Subject: [apps-discuss] Stewart Bryant's Discuss on draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-09: (with DISCUSS)

From: "Stewart Bryant" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 07:15:13 -0700

Stewart Bryant has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-09: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This discuss is initially for my colleagues on the IESG.

This update to RFC5451 introduces text containing what are almost
certainly the trade marked names of a number of products. This does not
seem to be called out in the text, which may be a problem for the trade
mark owners.

My question (to the IESG) is whether this is something that we need to
worry about, or something that we just leave for the RFC Editor to deal
with.

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 10:07:27 -0500

So, two comments on this:

1. Why do you think that the mention of a trademark in a document is 
something we should at all be concerned about? Referring to a product by 
using its trademark name is perfectly reasonable. What problem do you 
have in mind?

2. Are you referring to the products mentioned in section 7? Section 7 
has a note at the top that says, "[RFC Editor: Please delete this 
section prior to publication.]" If those are the trademarks you are 
concerned about, the point is moot since they won't appear in the document.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 16:37:10 +0100

On 03/07/2013 16:07, Pete Resnick wrote:
> something we should at all be concerned about? Referring to a product 
> by using its trademark name is perfectly reasonable. What problem do 
> you have in mind?
>
I missed the note to delete - clearing now.

The reason that trademarks concern me is that there is a legal 
requirement that a company protect or loose the right to a trademark - 
which is why you see Foo(tm)  footnote: Foo(tm) is a trademark of Foo 
Ltd in printed text. Seems if that is not done Foo becomes generic and 
no longer exclusive.

S

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 3 Jul 2013 15:55:47 -0000

>worry about, or something that we just leave for the RFC Editor to deal

The IETF is under no duty to acknowledge or otherwise defend
trademarks of third parties (despite the legend about the Unix
trademark.)

This sounds like a question that would better be directed to Jorge.

R's,
John

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 11:06:38 +0100

On 03/07/2013 16:55, John Levine wrote:
> .
John

Publishers are required to correctly recognize trademarks, and
trademark owners are required to ensure that publishers do this
to ensure that their trademark does not degrade to the generic
term.

For these purposes the IETF is a publisher, and we could receive
a complaint from the trademark name owner if we do not
properly acknowledge their trademark.

However the text will be removed (always had been planned
to be removed) so the point is addressed.

Stewart

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 8 Jul 2013 11:12:27 -0400

> to ensure that their trademark does not degrade to the generic

Having published many books with actual publishers including Wiley, 
Osborne/McGraw-Hill and the late lamented TAB and Sybex, I can assure you 
that your claim about publishers is simply not true.

While it is true that trademark owners have a duty to defend their 
trademarks, nobody else is under any duty to help them do so unless they 
have a contractual relationship with the trademark owners.  Trademark 
owners send out zillions of letters reminding unrelated parties about 
their trademarks, often phrased in misleading ways that imply that the 
recipient has to do something about it.  Sensible publishers throw them 
away.  Foolish publishers (I've dealt with a few) waste time filling their 
pages with (tm) and (R) marks.

For further information, you can find a copy of the US trademark law here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-22

The one reference to publishers is here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1114

I realize that the language in this document is gone, but it would be nice 
not to have to do this again the next time this comes up.

MPEC IOS NAVI Netcircle Gridblocks Appnav Startnet Tomorrow Starts Here,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.