On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
This is not a technical issue, it is the type of issue the IESG should
be involved with instead of making technical comments on the WG
output.
The selection of technology is a technical issue. Patent encumbrances are
a factor in that decision.
The problem here is that a bad precedent was set with the RSA patent.
There are two types of patent at issue, casual patents and
fundamental ones.
The RSA patent did not set any precedents, other than its subject matter.
In that sense, every patent is precedent setting.
There are only truly novel patents and patents that aren't truly novel.
But there is always another way to do something. It may be inconvenient.
It may be so inconvenient that you don't want to do it, or so inconvenient
that licensing is the grudgingly unhappy but obvious choice. Or, out of
principle, you may just choose not to do it at all. But sometimes the
search for another way to do something turns up a better solution: compare
LZW and bzip.
The scary thing about truly novel patents is that they may be so
revolutionary that it will take a long time to find another alternative,
and so impactful that non-licensees can't survive economically with the
alternatives.
Another scary thing is that one ordinarilly learns about them 18 months
after the filing. In those 18 months, one may have deployed quite a few
copies of the technology which they will have to pay for, or one may have
committed significant investment in the technology. You only learn about
this patent expense up to 18 months after its been incurred.
--Dean