From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of Andrew G. Malis
Sent: Tue 10/28/2008 9:53 AM
To: TS Glassey
Cc: tbray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; IETF Discussion; ipr-wg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.
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 mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf