RE: Patents can be for good, not only evil

Phil's strategy here is not without issues. This was raised during the W3C 
discussion when IBM pointed out at length that a license fee can be 
considerably less of an inconvenience than certain Zero fee licenses.

So for example a requirement that you can only implement a protocol using Java 
(or chose your language). Or use certain cipher suites, or a directory root 
controlled by the patent holder, or any number of similar schemes.

Defensive patents are certainly an acceptable practice, one that I would like 
to see encouraged. At this point I believe that you would find 95% of corporate 
patent lawyers at Internet companies would rank defending against patent 
lawsuits as a much higher priority than recovering revenue. 

One of the problems I see here is that engineers can be dissuaded from applying 
for defensive patents as doing so is likely to lead to them being held up for 
ridicule on forums like Slashdot. This is particular the case with defensive 
security patents which make claims against specific attacks against a system. 
The point here being not to sell products that implement the attack but to 
prevent others from doing so.
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Burger [mailto:eburger(_at_)bea(_dot_)com] 
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 5:16 PM
> To: Keith Moore; lrosen(_at_)rosenlaw(_dot_)com
> Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> Subject: Patents can be for good, not only evil
>
> I would offer that patents are NOT categorically evil.
>
> Phil Zimmerman has applied for patents in ZRTP, specifically 
> to ensure that all implementations fully conform with the 
> specification.  Cost to license for a conformant 
> specification?  $0.  Cost to not really provide privacy but 
> claim to be implementing ZRTP?  Costly!
>
> I specifically applied for patents underlying the technology 
> behind RFC 4722/RFC 5022 and RFC 4730 specifically to prevent 
> third parties, who are not part of the IETF process, from 
> extracting royalties from someone who implements MSCML or 
> KPML.  Cost to license?  $0.  Cost to sue someone who 
> infringes said third-party's IPR?  That depends, but at least 
> we raised the cost of shutting down an IETF standard.
>
> Remember, just because *you* do not have IPR in an IETF 
> standard does not mean someone *else* has IPR in the 
> standard.  If that someone else does not participate in the 
> IETF or, for that matter, happen to not participate in the 
> work group or, in reality, are not editors of a document, 
> they can fully apply their IPR against the standard once it issues.
>
> I like to have a little inoculation against that situation in 
> the stuff I submit.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu]
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 4:04 PM
> To: lrosen(_at_)rosenlaw(_dot_)com
> Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> Subject: Re: When is using patented technology appropriate?
>
> Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> > Keith Moore wrote:
> >   
> > > For several reasons, it is difficult to imagine an IETF-wide 
> > > procedure that allows the existence of a patent to trump other 
> > > considerations of protocol feasibility and deployability:
> > >     
> > Who suggested otherwise? It is not the existence of the patent that 
> > matters, but its unavailability under license terms that allow 
> > implementation in
> > *any* software.
> >   
> _and_ its validity, _and_ its applicability, both of which 
> can be subjective and difficult to determine conclusively 
> without long delays
> and excessive expense.   so we have to make judgments.  and by "we" I
> mean individuals participating in IETF, not IETF itself.
> > The more feasible and deployable the protocol, the more 
> important will
>
> > be FOSS implementations.
> >   
> only relative to other protocols in the same space.
>
> granted that patents are the bane of any open 
> standards-making organization, because patents do exactly the 
> opposite of what open standards do.  at the same time, we 
> can't let FUD about patents become a denial of service attack 
> to IETF efforts.
>
> Keith
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
> Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, 
> may contain information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its 
> subsidiaries  and  affiliated entities,  that may be 
> confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or legally 
> privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the 
> individual or entity named in this message. If you are not 
> the intended recipient, and have received this message in 
> error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf