Chuck Powers wrote: > +1 > > That is a legal quagmire that the IETF (like all good standards > development groups) must avoid. Chuck is not alone in saying that, as you have just seen. These are the very people who refused to add "patent policy" to the charter of the previous IPR WG, and who controlled "consensus" on that point last time. Shall we ask the FSF members of IETF also to comment on the need for IETF to develop a comprehensive policy toward patents so that encumbrances to Internet standards can be understood and avoided in the future? /Larry > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Powers Chuck-RXCP20 > Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 12:36 PM > To: Thomas Narten; Noel Chiappa > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: References to Redphone's "patent" > > +1 > > That is a legal quagmire that the IETF (like all good standards > development groups) must avoid. > > > Regards, > Chuck > ------------- > Chuck Powers, > Motorola, Inc > phone: 512-427-7261 > mobile: 512-576-0008 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > > Behalf Of Thomas Narten > > Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 2:31 PM > > To: Noel Chiappa > > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: References to Redphone's "patent" > > > > jnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Noel Chiappa) writes: > > > > > > From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > the previous IPR WG .. refused even to discuss a > > patent policy for IETF. > > > > > I thought the IETF sort of had one, though (see RFC mumble)? > > > > > I definitely agree that the IETF could use some sort of permanent > > > legal IPR consulting board that WG's could go to and say 'we have > > > this IPR filing, what does it mean, and what is the likely impact on > > > our work'. > > > > Please don't go there. > > > > IPR consultation is all about risk analysis. And risk to the IETF > > vs. risk to me personally vs. risk to my employer vs. risk to somebody > > else's employer, etc. All are VERY different things. > > > > I don't see an IPR consulting board as being helpful at all. It will > > still come down to someone else trying to tell *me* (or you) that I > > (or you) shouldn't worry about something, yet it might well be *my* > > (or your) skin if things go awry. > > > > The IETF absolutely and fundamentally needs stay out of evaluating the > > merits of potential IPR and what the associated risks are. This is > > fundamentally an individual decision that every implementor needs to > > make on their own. > > > > This principle has been a bedrock of the IETF's IPR policy for a very > > long time, and for good reason. > > > > Oh, and another important point, even when we have IPR disclosures, > > they are often for patent applications, which are not public, nor have > > they been issued (so they are only potential patents). In such cases, > > there is precious little an advisory board could tell us, other than > > "we don't know"... > > > > Thomas > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf