Brian Carpenter wrote:
... so that the
goal of 100% unencumbered standards is unrealistic.
That's almost certainly true. The world is full of encumbered standards,
including in products I buy and use every day. I agree with you that THAT
goal is unrealistic. No Don Quixote here! In fact, most IP attorneys like me
support the freedom of individuals and companies to seek patents on their
inventive technology and to profit - alone or in legal combination with
their business partners - with products that implement those patents.
But we're talking here about IETF standards, specifications that are
prepared cooperatively and for free by talented individuals, companies and
countries around the world. These specifications are intended for
implementation everywhere to facilitate communications among us all. None of
us want patent surprises when we implement IETF specifications. Everyone
expects IETF to take reasonable steps, consistent with its fundamental
technical mission, to de-mine the patent landscape so that anyone can
implement our worldwide specifications in products of all types.
I'm not proposing unrealistic goals, but instead proposing this more limited
IETF-centric goal of free standards for IETF specifications. That is why I
suggested that as a charter for the IPR-WG to review and propose how to make
it happen here.
As for those other non-IETF patent-encumbered standards: They can probably
survive without IETF's free help.
/Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter
[mailto:brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 12:27 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: Ted Hardie; lrosen(_at_)rosenlaw(_dot_)com; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
Contreras, Jorge
Subject: Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-
authz-extns]
Phill,
If there were in addition some standard non disclosure contracts,
standard contracts for holding pre-standards meeting and the like the
result could be turned into a book which most managers in the valley would
probably end up buying.
Most of them, and those in Armonk that I used to work for, bought Section
10 of RFC 2026 and its successors. Certainly, open
source was less of a factor when that regime was designed, but Linux still
supports TCP/IP as far as I know. So I think the
experimental evidence supports the arguments you're hearing from me, Ted
and others.
Don't confuse that with a liking for standards encumbered by patents with
expensive licensing conditions. It's simply a matter
of finding a pragmatic compromise in a world where software patents are
granted, and often upheld by the courts, so that the
goal of 100% unencumbered standards is unrealistic.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf