Paul Judge wrote:
We've had previous discussions about IPR policy. Please see Vern Paxson's
message on the topic:
https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg01929.html
. If anyone feels the need to voice additional positions on this topic,
please feel free to address them to me off-list.
Thanks for pointing me to the previous email.
However, that email simply points out that there's no policy
and that there appears to be a need for one... I don't see a decision
being made. In particular, it suggests that:
"for any technology discussed within RGs that has
related IPR, that the presence of the possible IPR be disclosed."
While I believe that's too weak, required disclosure is at least
a good start for informed discussion, and that at least is something
that the working group could quickly agree on as a starting point.
Can the working group at least agree to require disclosure the presence of
any related IPR (including _pending_ patents)? This is the sort of thing
that has to be agreed on NOW, during discussions, instead of
waiting for "later" (when it will be too late). Otherwise, a few
enterprising individuals will submit patent requests on obvious ideas
the day before they post, work hard to make sure their
idea is implemented, and then surprise all with a patent
(the U.S. PTO, for example, is notoriously bad at identifying obvious ideas).
The result: anti-spam approaches will fail.
--- David A. Wheeler
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg