Sent: Thu 01/11/2007 9:35 AM
To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Patents can be for good, not only evil
>... because as has been stated several times, it is rare that a WG
>even knows the dimensions of possible IPR issues before they have got
>their ideas sorted out.
The only exception to this was SACRED where the whole point of the Working Group was to try to develop a technology that was not encumbered. When they discovered that this was not going to be possible they gave up. So even in SACRED where the state of IPR was in doubt the participants knew what their objective was.
>IPR should be discussed at *every* stage. Just because you discuss it
>in a BOF doesn't mean you can mandate it out of existence later.
All that I am proposing to rule out of scope is discussion of whether the IPR terms that would be acceptable (or not). The question of whether a proposal was effectively encumbered (or not) and thus incompatible with the charter would still be open for discussion.
Also out of scope would be questions of the form 'are the terms offered by Very Large Corporation compatible with the MeeToo Open Sauce License which I have just made up to be deliberatively obstructive'.
If a WG was chartered with an open IPR clause, allowing RAND it would not be in scope to subsequently object to the encumbered technology on those grounds.
The point is not that discussion of IPR is prohibited entirely, the point is that you can't move the goalposts after the fact. If a group is chartered as RAND and someone either works out a scheme that is unencumbered or is offered on W3C-RF terms they are almost certain to win the discussion in the Working Group.
What I am trying to do here is to set up the rules of the game so that they minimize repetative condition and create the optimal incentives for Patent Rights Holders to offer acceptable terms.
>Or perhaps one that doesn't require a license at all. RANDZ is not
>the best outcome ... and yes, you could make statements like that in
>the charter (some have), but that doesn't mean a requirement is
>appropriate.
Actually I have long been an advocate of Patent Access as opposed to Patent Licensing. As I pointed out in the wake of the MARID fiasco, all the parties want is to avoid being sued. Microsoft's Open Promise effectively avoids the need for a license.
The point is that we need a standard set of terms such as W3C-RF. Rather than go through the business of renegotiating those terms yet again I would prefer to simply adopt them as is. I would then like to see the IETF and W3C jointly ceed change control over the terms to a body that is specifically equiped to dicuss such legal issues. This could be a body like Creative Commons or possibly some other body like the E-Terms group that Michael Baum tried to set up in the early 90s.
I don't want this to continue as an IETF flamewar amongst people who really know very little about the legal issues. Except for Laurence Rosen, none of us are lawyers. I want to see folk like Larry Lessig and Joe Alhadeff and the Microsoft and IBM folk also hammering these terms out. Neither IETF or W3C is that forum but we can certainly help to create that forum or repurpose an existing one.
>And yet they do, when people choose a slight encumbrance in order to
>gain utility within a certain scope of use. It's all about tradeoffs
>that can only be made once you know exactly what you're trading.
I don't think that there is such a thing as a slight encumberance. Unless the IPR terms are completely specified any implementor can only rely on 'reasonable and non descriminatory' - whatever that might mean.
Some standards organizations do in fact negotiate detailed IPR terms, the DVD folk for exmple. The IETF does not and cannot as we don't represent our employers and don't have a means of voting.
>> If we have two technologies on offer, A and B from different parties
>> I want to be able to set up a bidding war between the parties to
>> offer the most favorable terms.
>Good idea ... but afaict most IPR claimants will want to know clearly
>how their IPR intersects with the technology being standardized before
>they play. That means you can't do this until late in the process.
Absolutely, you cannot get agreement until the end but you can specify the acceptable terms for the agreement before that point.
At the moment we have a three way intesection with the third unknown being what IPR terms will be acceptable and from which parties.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf