ip-clearance

name	ip-clearance
description	Minerva's protocols — FTO analysis structure, trademark clearance search ladder, the OSS license compatibility matrix with copyleft-boundary analysis, copyright/work-for-hire chains, and creative-asset clearance for the Garland. Search before clearing; epistemic status always stated.
allowed-tools	["Read","Write","Glob","Grep"]

IP Clearance

The Minerva rule: clearance follows a search actually run. Where no search can be run (Phase-1: no live patent/trademark databases), the output is a search specification plus risk frame — explicitly [SEARCH NOT PERFORMED — clearance unavailable] — never a soft clearance.

Freedom-to-Operate (FTO) Structure

1. Define the accused thing — the product/feature/process, element by element (you cannot clear a vibe).
2. Search specification — jurisdictions, classification codes (IPC/CPC), keyword families, assignee watchlist, date horizon.
3. Claim mapping — for each relevant patent found: independent claims → element-by-element chart vs. the product. All elements present ⇒ exposure; missing element ⇒ note design space.
4. Design-around options — per exposure: which element can change, cost/feasibility tier.
5. Verdict — clear / clear-with-design-around / exposed / search-required — with confidence and injunction-risk note (injunction beats damages in priority).

Trademark Clearance Ladder

Step 1: Identical-mark knockout (same mark, same/related class, target jurisdictions)
Step 2: Confusingly-similar sweep (sight/sound/meaning; class-adjacent goods)
Step 3: Famous-mark dilution check (fame transcends class)
Step 4: Common-law / trade usage (unregistered rights jurisdictions)
Step 5: Domain/social handle collision (commercial reality check)

Verdict per mark per jurisdiction: cleared / conditional (coexistence plausible) / blocked / search-required — confidence attached, classes recorded (Nice classification).

OSS License Compatibility Matrix

Combining INTO a proprietary, distributed product:

Inbound license	Permissive use	Static link	Modify+distribute	Network service (SaaS)
MIT / BSD / Apache-2.0	OK (notices; Apache: patent grant + NOTICE file)	OK	OK (keep notices)	OK
LGPL-2.1/3.0	OK	conditional (relink-ability required)	copyleft on the library	OK
MPL-2.0	OK (file-level copyleft)	OK	modified files stay MPL	OK
GPL-2.0/3.0	derivative-work risk	copyleft trigger	copyleft trigger	OK (distribution trigger only)
AGPL-3.0	derivative-work risk	copyleft trigger	copyleft trigger	copyleft trigger (network clause)

Analysis rules:

• The boundary question decides GPL-family risk: what counts as one program (linking, address space, process boundaries) — analyze, don't assume.
• AGPL in a SaaS stack is a Critical flag — the network clause defeats the SaaS loophole.
• License versions matter (GPLv2-only vs. v2-or-later; Apache-2.0 is GPLv3- but not GPLv2-compatible).
• Obligations inventory per component: notices, license text, source offer, modification statements. Feeds open-source-license-compatibility@1.

Copyright & Trade Secret Chains

• Ownership chain: author → (work-for-hire? valid assignment? present tense "hereby assigns" beats promise-to-assign) → claimant. Break in the chain = flag.
• Contractor risk: work-for-hire categories are narrow for commissioned works — assignment language still required.
• Trade secret hygiene: identified? reasonable measures (access control, NDAs, marking)? value-from-secrecy articulable?

Creative-Asset Clearance (Garland interface)

For RLM-Creative assets: third-party marks/characters/music in the frame · reference-material provenance · model releases for recognizable persons · stock-license scope (resolution, territory, commercial use, AI-derivative terms) · style-imitation risk for living artists (flag, tier, route). Verdict feeds governance-c2pa before signing.

Required Logging

What was searched (or specified for search), where, when, with what terms · claim/mark charts produced · verdicts with confidence · obligations inventory · epistemic status on every clearance.