On 2009-02-14 10:41, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The proposal that I made then was that when a working group is started, it
specify the IPR criteria under which it is chartered. In some cases it makes
perfect sense to charter a group that will be using encumbered technology. In
other cases the entire purpose of the group requires that any technology be
open and unencumbered.
We've been round that argument enough times that it's become a tradition.
A priori rules like that make no sense for the IETF.
1. They inhibit innovative thinking within the WG process, because
they mean that the major technical options must basically be
decided before you start, so that you can decide which IPR regime
is going to work. And if you decide a priori to be RF, the available
solutions are dramatically constrained. Or to say it more emotively:
all the good ideas have been patented anyway.
2. They would assist the patent trolls, who could make sure to
quietly acquire patents that encumber the 'royalty free' solution
just in time for the standard to be widely adopted.
Leaving the choice until later in the process isn't perfect,
but it reduces these two risks and matches the reality of
IPR laws and practices, which are heavily based on RAND and
reciprocity, like it or not.
IMHO, as always.
Ietf mailing list