On Thu, 30 May 2002, Dave Crocker wrote:
Generally this thread seems to be seeking determinacy for a matter that can
only be made deterministic by a) ignoring IPR encumbrance, or b) rejecting
all IPR encumbrances. The first is not compatible with IETF culture. The
latter is not practical in some cases.
So, what exactly do folks think is a practical kind of change to the
current IETF policies?
I think the most effective thing would be to send a strong signal of some
kind: "If you patent technologies and give non-RF licenses, _do not expect
the technology be supported in IETF at all_". Cannot adapt
internet-drafts with RAND terms as working group documents unless
explicitly chartered to do so etc. (Though there could be a case-by-case
appeals process or whatever -- if something really really major would show
up.)
A bad thing IETF could do (but not the worst luckily :-) is to give a
signal "Ok.. feel free to patent and give RAND licensing.. depending how
good it is, we might give it a standards status or we might not". That
_encourages_ to do patents (or try to), and we want to avoid that.
That way, RAND and other restrictions would only be used to harass IETF
progress (and those of their competitors) with patents that they never
intend to go to standards. But we can't avoid that anyway.
--
Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords