> As I recall, RAND was explicitly selected over RF because there are and > will be technologies that are interesting to incorporate in a > system-wide standard approach, and forcing RF terms would automatically > exclude those. There is enough of a bias in the participants toward RF > when available, that explicit language requiring it adds no value and in > some cases actually subtracts value from the process of achieving > consensus. > > If what you are asking for is that for every proposal / i-d that shows > up in the IETF, the IPR holder is automatically required to provide an > RF license, you really don't understand the reason people bother with > patents to begin with. tony - i don't find your last paragraph to be particularly "helpful". a reasoned argument can be made that patents and community standards are incompatible. a rigorous study of the US patent system indicates that the founders introduced the system in order to serve the public good, by encouraging innovation, by granting limited monopolies on inventions. it is unclear if that system is particularly compatible with community-based approaches such as the IETF where, by definition, the output is not monopolized. with respect to your first paragraph, i note that if technology companies see value in participating in the standards process, then perhaps it is not unreasonable to suggest that the IETF consider only RF stuff, and then let the various IPR stakeholders decide whether the trade-off is worth it... in other words, if someone has some whizbang technology, and if they want the imprimatur of a community such as the IETF, then they can decide for themselves whether to RF it. if not, they are perfectly free to pursue a proprietary market strategy. for myself, i take no position on the merits of the two kinds of licensing; rather, i merely note that the issue is somewhat more subtle than first glance. /mtr