Paul Hoffman <paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org> writes:
At 4:10 PM -0700 10/18/07, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Isn't it preferable to get into early battles over IP rules--and make sure
those rules are clear to WG participants--before we have wasted our time and
resources developing specifications that half the world (or more) can't
implement?
I don't know which of the IETF WGs you have been involved with, but
that hasn't been the case for any of the ones I have dealt with. Could
you give an example of an WG in which this would have been preferable?
The DNSEXT WG is a good example where patented technology has been
presented and time has been spent on discussing what to do with it.
Some time later the working group drafted a requirements document (RFC
4986) which contained the following requirement '5.2. No Known
Intellectual Property Encumbrance'.
The inclination to standardize only non-patented technology in DNSEXT is
fairly strong. If the WG had made the policy explicit early on, the
discussions related to the patented ideas could have been more easily
dismissed. Time could be spent on more productive work.
I think there are other examples, e.g., SRP in SASL WG.
Has anyone ever suggested that we inhibit "free discussion of initial
ideas"? Please don't raise silly arguments like that.
It is not a silly argument. Yes, there are a few engineers in the IETF
who like to play armchair lawyer and would love to spend the initial
time of WG formation pontificating about IPR, but they are in the
small minority. Such a discussion would be of no interest to the folks
who want to do good technical work.
In today's world you can't do good technical work on a commercial basis
without considering patents.
/Simon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf