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.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 12:27 PM > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip > Cc: Ted Hardie; lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; 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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf