On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 3:53 PM Pete Resnick <resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 16 Jul 2019, at 14:10, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 3:03 PM Leif Johansson <leifj@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Skickat från min iPhone
>>
>>> 16 juli 2019 kl. 19:28 skrev Pete Resnick <resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>
>>>> On 16 Jul 2019, at 3:54, Leif Johansson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...for smaller companies
>>>> whose primary IPR assets is tied up in that one strategic standards
>>>> process, its probably not surprising that other IPR models seem
>>>> very
>>>> attractive. In particular variations on the theme "everyone keep
>>>> their
>>>> IPR, promise not to litigate and publish after SDO agrees on what
>>>> the
>>>> standard is" has been pretty common.
>>>
>>> People tend to forget that you can pretty much do that IPR model in
>>> the
>>> IETF if you really want to.
>>
>> Has anyone ever done so?
>
> The PKCS standards were this way for a while, but I recently (last fe
> years) assisted with transferring change control over.
Well, I guess I should have been more precise: Patent IPR you can
obviously retain and make a promise not to litigate; that's what the
whole IPR disclosure process allows you to do, and it's done all of the
time. Copyright IPR you do have to give up change control over if you
want it to be on the standards track. PKCS had all of its issues over
copyright IPR, not patent IPR, IIRC.
Yes, I may have been reading to quickly.
pr
--
Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
Best regards,
Kathleen
