At 3:14 PM +0000 2/17/09, Michael Dillon wrote: > > >> >One suggestion, now a specific topic on this list if you care to respond >> >directly, is for the creation of an IETF IPR Advisory Board to help people >> >everywhere--including thousands of disaffected FSF campaigners--to >> >understand why certain patents (including the Redphone "patent") are not >> >worth worrying about. > >> - If there are "thousands of disaffected FSF campaigners", this should be the FSF IPR Advisory Board. You have yet to explain why the aggrieved party is not willing to do the work to make themselves happy. > >There is the germ of a good idea here. History has shown that the FSF >is very concerned >with how the IETF standardisation process deals with patent issues. >This is a reasonable >concern given the FSF's raison d'etre. > >Therefore, why not proactively consult the FSF on any standards track >document that >makes use of patented material? Because we don't know which of them do. For instance, the document that kicked off the message barrage that preceded thread does not, as far as anyone knows, "make use of patented material". One company that has a patent *application* that they think (and probably hope) will get granted says that they think (and probably hope) applies to the protocol has informed the IETF of that fact. Their patent might not be granted. It might be granted, but limited in a way that clearly does not apply to the protocol. It might be granted and two intelligent people looking at the patent and the protocol could disagree about where it applies. > Proactively drive the dialogue by >getting the FSF >involved at an early stage, and by providing a separate mailing list >(ietf-comments) >for discussing the IPR issues. Why single out the FSF? Patent-encumbered protocols affect commercial vendors to the same extent as they affect FSF members (and possibly moreso). >In addition, more dialogue with FSF members should prove to be useful in >resolving some of the open questions about IPR, copyrights, licencing and >so on. This is the opposite of what Larry wanted: he wanted lawyers to give advice. You are wanting non-lawyers to give legal advice. We already have an abundance of the latter. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf