ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]

2007-10-19 10:57:50
I would expect RAND charters to be issued rarely if at all. I would only expect 
a RAND charter to issue if there was some overwhelmingly compelling IPR that 
everyone agreed is simply indispensible.
 
The only case I can remember where this was the case in the past was public key 
cryptography. The only current area of networking where I see a compelling set 
of IPR is in the content rights management space, and I don't think the patent 
issues would be the only barrier to working on that problem in the IETF.
 
We already have a notice requirement. I would certainly like to see Note Well 
being made much more prominent, in particular I think that there should be 
mandatory Note Well notices presented in the registration process for every 
IETF WG mailing list. I would also like to see all lists managed by the IETF 
directly and a comprehensive archive kept with digitally notorized records of 
all subscriptions, posts, unsubscriptions, drafts, etc.
 
The only thing that would change here is that when a company does declare IPR 
it knows that there are only three possible outcomes:
 
1) The WG works around the IPR claim, either changing the specification to 
avoid the claim or if the claim is obviouly spurious rejecting it (i.e. if 
someone claims that their patent on a new method of swinging covers HTTP it can 
probably be simply noted).
 
2) The IPR holder makes an irrevocable pledge to grant a RANDZ license to any 
party implementing the specification that agrees not to enforce its own IPR 
claims with respect to the specification on the IPR holder.
 
3) The WG droes not proceed with the work item in question. The only way to 
proceed at this point is to either charter a new WG under RAND terms, to submit 
the work as a personal submission on RAND terms, to proceed in another venue 
with different IPR terms or to not proceed at all.
 
There is absolutely no change in the preconditions. Note Well applies today and 
will under the new rules. The only difference is that we have eliminated a 
fourth option that exists today:
 
4) Argue for the work continuing in the WG on terms that are not RANDZ, are not 
compatible with open source licensing, commercial use, contain viral poison 
pills, or otherwise objectionable.
 
The decision of which of the three outcomes to choose cannot be made till the 
end of the process for the simple reason that we don't know what the spec will 
be like until then. A concern of mine is always the last minute change that 
pushes a spec into IPR hell.
 
 
I have very rarely seen IPR issues with the core of a standards based protocol. 
If you have a strong hold on the IPR then the topic has to be pretty huge to 
make the overhead of standards work worthwhile. If you have cast iron IPR and a 
compelling value proposition you can set the standards yourself unilaterally. 
And why should the rest of the community give their time to create the 
technology if thewy are going to pass through your toll booth?
 
What is much more common is the optional extension that is patent encumbered. I 
have a few patent applications of that type. But I don't go smurfing them here 
or anywhere else.

________________________________

From: Scott Brim [mailto:swb(_at_)employees(_dot_)org]
Sent: Thu 18/10/2007 6:12 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Simon Josefsson; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Tim Polk
Subject: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last 
Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]



On 19 Oct 2007 at 10:30 +1300, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
On 2007-10-19 05:47, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
What I would suggest is that new working groups be required to
specify the governing IPR rules in their charter, these would be
either that all IPR must be offered according to an open grant on
W3C terms or that the working group specifies at the outset that
RAND terms are acceptable.

Violent disagreement. That would make all kinds of a priori
processes kick in for employees of patent-conscious companies, and
generally inhibit free discussion of initial ideas. Although it's
messier to confront patent issues later in the process, I believe
that is much better than constraining participation at the
beginning.

+1

Otherwise you get into battles over theory and ideology without any of
the information you need to make a decision.  You will still be able
to take your stance once the technical tradeoffs are worked out.


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>