Todd, I see your point about the cost of producing standards. However, having been both on the vendor and service provider sides of the street, I can tell you that most (all?) service providers generally require their vendors to implement standards so that their products are interoperable and meet particular requirements - in an RFP, it's much easier to put in a list of RFCs, ITU-T recommendations, etc., rather than have to list every individual requirement. As a result, vendors don't generally specifically track their standards participation costs - it's just a part of the cost of doing business in a particular market. It all goes back to the light bulb as a great example of standards setting - back before there was a standard base for bulbs, I'm sure every light bulb manufacturer had a vested interest in their pre-standard bases and sockets - whether it screwed left or right or used push-in pins, the size of the base, etc., and sent people to the meetings to represent their interests when that particular standard was being set. It was just a necessary cost of being in the light bulb business at that particular time. Cheers, Andy On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 8:54 PM, TS Glassey <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@xxxxxxxxx> > To: <tbray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "TS Glassey" <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "IETF Discussion" > <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; <ipr-wg@xxxxxxxx> > Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 2:53 PM > Subject: Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP. > > >> Todd, >> >> I generally agree with Tim that it would be difficult to put a value >> on any IETF submission without an actual transfer of assets of some >> sort to set a price. > > The costs of replicating the works - say from a tech writer skilled in an > area is a reasonable place to start. Take the hourly rate and then multiply > that times the number of hours involved and the number of people. > > I suggested that the unbundling of the R&D costs was appropriate since all > the IETF publishes is a set of document-standards per se. > >> >> However, in general, if a company feels that there is IPR value in >> technology they are going to include in a submission (and this really >> deals with ANY kind of standards submission, not just to the IETF), > > How do you figure they 'deal' with how much it costs to send people to the > IETF several times a year. Also to cover the costs of their local > participation. > >> they will most probably submit a patent application prior to the >> standards submission. So the existence of a patent declaration >> accompanying the submission at least provides a clue that the >> submitting company feels that there is some value there (else they >> wouldn't have bothered with the patent application). > > Only if there is a real program inside the Sponsor to accomplish that. This > is one of the issues in the IETF. There are many who are really enamored > with the idea that the IETF is a fraternal benevolent society rather than a > Intellectual Proeperty War Chest disguised cleverly as an International > Networking SDO. > >> >> However, a value generally can't be set until the company actually >> starts to issue patent licenses. The value could be as little as zero >> if no other companies feel compelled to license the technology. >> >> As always, the "value of the workproduct", as you put it, is set by the >> market. > > But the costs of creating it are not. That was the point. The baseline is > the costs of replacing the written work. > >> >> Cheers, >> Andy >> >> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Tim Bray <tbray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 8:27 AM, TS Glassey <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Since there is now a specific value estimated by the LINUX community at >>>> 1.4B >>>> for the kernel itself >>> >>> Hey, I've done an analysis and found that my toenail clippings are >>> worth $3.8762 billion. That kernel-valuation exercise is the silliest >>> kind of science fiction. Let me let you in on a little secret: >>> Everything in the world has a value, and that value is exactly what >>> people are prepared to pay for it. No more, no less. >>> >>> On payment of a generous consulting fee, I would be delighted to >>> "estimate a specific value" for any given RFC or even I-D. I'll even >>> issue gold-framed certificates you can mount on the wall. -Tim >>> >>>> , the IETF can no longer hide its head in the sand >>>> claiming that its workproduct has no specific value. This also means >>>> that >>>> ANY AND ALL contributions to the IETF no matter when they happened now >>>> need >>>> to be formally acknowledged for their financial value at the time of >>>> their >>>> contribution. >>>> >>>> This is not an OPTION. >>>> >>>> Todd Glassey >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ietf mailing list >>>> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ietf mailing list >>> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >>> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.3/1745 - Release Date: 10/25/2008 > 9:53 AM > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf