Excerpts from Hallam-Baker, Phillip on Wed, Oct 31, 2007 08:38:45AM -0700: > How many Working Group participants who vent on patent issues have > read RFC 3669? > > Of those who have read it, how many consider it to be binding? > > All RFC 3669 does is to allow endless discussion of topics that most > WGs do not consider core. They may be important considerations but > the Working Groups themselves are the wrong place to do design work > in the IPR space.
It was never intended to be "binding" in any way. We decided that there are no blanket rules or processes that can be applied to every IPR situation in every working group. Therefore we provided case studies and principles that they can use -- if they choose -- as guidance. > Very few Working Group participants have any real interest or > understanding of the patent system other than to wish it would go > away. The most likely reason a WG participant would have detailed > knowedge is if they were an unwilling participant in a patent > lawsuit or had a proposal shot down because some group of lawyers > objected to the IPR terms (both have happend to me). > > The bulk of the opinions expressed might be characterized as > ideological rather than informed. So what we get as a result is not > a useful discussion, its more like a slashdot flamewa > > Its not productive discussion, the arguments are entirely > repetative. I agree with all of this but ... > Eliminating repetative, unproductive arguments is the function of > the charter. We write charters that rule technical issues such as > designing a new PKI, Web Services transport layer, cryptographic > algorithm, &ct &ct out of scope. So why not rule the IPR question > out of scope at the charter stage unlss there is a specific reason > to beleive that a WG would need to deal with it? ... because as has been stated several times, it is rare that a WG even knows the dimensions of possible IPR issues before they have got their ideas sorted out. > Understanding the IPR landscape is one of the things I always try to > do before starting or joining a group. IPR is always a BOF topic. It > is not that we don't discuss in advance. In fact in many cases the > whole raison d'etre for the group is to create an unencumbered > standard to replace a proprietary protocol. IPR should be discussed at *every* stage. Just because you discuss it in a BOF doesn't mean you can mandate it out of existence later. > For example, take a look at the Ford-Wienner key management patent > which is due to expire at some point in the not so distant future. > The invention describes a lightweight CRM scheme. I can well imagine > that someone might want to start a working group to produce an > unencumbered CRM protocol based on Ford-Wienner and S/MIME. The > whole point of chartering a group of that type would be to produce a > RANDZ protocol and so it should be stated in the charter. Or perhaps one that doesn't require a license at all. RANDZ is not the best outcome ... and yes, you could make statements like that in the charter (some have), but that doesn't mean a requirement is appropriate. > I don't think that there are many cases where a non RANDZ IPR clause > is going to fly. And yet they do, when people choose a slight encumbrance in order to gain utility within a certain scope of use. It's all about tradeoffs that can only be made once you know exactly what you're trading. > If we have two technologies on offer, A and B from different parties > I want to be able to set up a bidding war between the parties to > offer the most favorable terms. Good idea ... but afaict most IPR claimants will want to know clearly how their IPR intersects with the technology being standardized before they play. That means you can't do this until late in the process. Scott _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
