Re: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re: References to Redphone's patent)
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 02:11:26PM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote: But are the 1,000 or so emails in recent days from the FSF campaign not a loud enough hum to recognize that our IPR policy is out of tune? This is not the first such open source campaign either. IETF needs a more sturdy process to deal with IPR issues. Please consider the suggestions now on the table. Given how badly misinformed the FSF and their 1,000 blind followers were --- no, it's not even a hum. More like the sound of a Concord taking off if an IETF meeting happened to be located in a hotel which was unfortunately located too close to an airport's runways. Full of sound and jury, signifying nothing... :-) - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How we got here, RE: References to Redphone's patent
PHB == Hallam-Baker, Phillip pba...@verisign.com writes: PHB The proposal that I made then was that when a working group is PHB started, it specify the IPR criteria under which it is PHB chartered. In some cases it makes perfect sense to charter a PHB group that will be using encumbered technology. In other cases PHB the entire purpose of the group requires that any technology be PHB open and unencumbered. I didn't know you had proposed this. It's brilliant. It means that we have decided things up-front. +1 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re: References to Redphone's patent)
John Levine wrote: But are the 1,000 or so emails in recent days from the FSF campaign not a loud enough hum to recognize that our IPR policy is out of tune? Are you really saying that all it takes is a mob motivated by an misleading screed to make the IETF change direction? Yes - exactly that. From the sample of the FSF letters I read, many of the people writing didn't know the difference between Redphone and Red Hat, and if as many as two of them had even looked at the draft or IPR disclosure in question, it'd be a lot. The FSF's absolutist position on patents was set in stone 20 years ago. I don't see why we should be impressed if they occasionally throw a handful of pebbles at us. R's, John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re: References to Redphone's patent)
Lawrence Rosen wrote: 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. To be precise: Last time was at the San Francisco IETF meeting, March 16-22 2003, and I was the one controlling consensus. The minutes (at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03mar/132.htm ) show this conclusion, after much discussion: 1. do you wish this group to recharter to cdhange the IETF's IPR policy hum for (some) hom anti (more) fairly clear consensus against rechartering. anyone disagree? harald: will verified on mailing list, will lead to some debate. if consensus is reached against rechartering... the IETF will not consider proposals to create or reactivate IPR wg before people with compelling arg to do so. those should be different than what prevented so far. Despite the abysmal spelling quality, it was pretty clear at the time that the arguments presented were not compelling. I haven't seen significant new arguments in the meantime; that doesn't mean they don't exist, just that I haven't seen them. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re: References to Redphone's patent)
Harald Alvestrand writing about decisions made on March 16-22 2003: 1. do you wish this group to recharter to cdhange the IETF's IPR policy hum for (some) hom anti (more) fairly clear consensus against rechartering. anyone disagree? Hi Harald, Let's forget the past; I acknowledge we lost that argument then among those few who bothered to hum. But are the 1,000 or so emails in recent days from the FSF campaign not a loud enough hum to recognize that our IPR policy is out of tune? This is not the first such open source campaign either. IETF needs a more sturdy process to deal with IPR issues. Please consider the suggestions now on the table. Best regards, /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243 Skype: LawrenceRosen -Original Message- From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:har...@alvestrand.no] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 5:10 AM To: lro...@rosenlaw.com Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re: References to Redphone's patent) Lawrence Rosen wrote: 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. To be precise: Last time was at the San Francisco IETF meeting, March 16-22 2003, and I was the one controlling consensus. The minutes (at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03mar/132.htm ) show this conclusion, after much discussion: 1. do you wish this group to recharter to cdhange the IETF's IPR policy hum for (some) hom anti (more) fairly clear consensus against rechartering. anyone disagree? harald: will verified on mailing list, will lead to some debate. if consensus is reached against rechartering... the IETF will not consider proposals to create or reactivate IPR wg before people with compelling arg to do so. those should be different than what prevented so far. Despite the abysmal spelling quality, it was pretty clear at the time that the arguments presented were not compelling. I haven't seen significant new arguments in the meantime; that doesn't mean they don't exist, just that I haven't seen them. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re: References to Redphone's patent)
But are the 1,000 or so emails in recent days from the FSF campaign not a loud enough hum to recognize that our IPR policy is out of tune? Are you really saying that all it takes is a mob motivated by an misleading screed to make the IETF change direction? From the sample of the FSF letters I read, many of the people writing didn't know the difference between Redphone and Red Hat, and if as many as two of them had even looked at the draft or IPR disclosure in question, it'd be a lot. The FSF's absolutist position on patents was set in stone 20 years ago. I don't see why we should be impressed if they occasionally throw a handful of pebbles at us. R's, John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re: References to Redphone's patent)
At 2:11 PM -0800 2/16/09, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Let's forget the past; I acknowledge we lost that argument then among those few who bothered to hum. Many of us have heard this in various technical working groups when people who didn't get their way come back later. Such reconsiderations, particularly on topics of a non-protocol nature, are rarely embraced. We are humans with limited time and energy and focus. But are the 1,000 or so emails in recent days from the FSF campaign not a loud enough hum to recognize that our IPR policy is out of tune? No, it is a statement that a group of people who are not active in the IETF want us to spend our time and effort to fix a problem they feel that they have. This is not the first such open source campaign either. IETF needs a more sturdy process to deal with IPR issues. Please consider the suggestions now on the table. Where? I see no Internet Draft, nor any significant group of people who have said they are willing to work on the problem. Seriously, if this is a significant issue for this motivated group of people, they can do some research and write one (or probably more) Internet Drafts. The IETF has never been swayed by blitzes of a mailing list asking for us to do someone else's technical work; we should not be swayed by similar blitzes asking us to do their policy work. We are, however, amazingly (and sometime painfully) open to discussing worked-out solutions of either a technical or policy nature. In this case, worked-out means a document that describes the the current solution, the advantages and disadvantages of it, a proposal for a new solution, and a transition plan. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re: References to Redphone's patent)
But are the 1,000 or so emails in recent days from the FSF campaign not a loud enough hum to recognize that our IPR policy is out of tune? Are you really saying that all it takes is a mob motivated by an misleading screed to make the IETF change direction? I certainly hope not because, as you said previously, think what advantage large companies would be able to take of it. From the sample of the FSF letters I read, many of the people writing didn't know the difference between Redphone and Red Hat, Yeah, that was briefly amusing, as was the ones that wanted to stop the standardization of TLS because of this patent. Amusing at first, that is, then quite annoying. and if as many as two of them had even looked at the draft or IPR disclosure in question, it'd be a lot. I think I spotted five that seemed to be somewhat informed. But even those didn't do any sort of analysis of the disclosure or the patent application to back up their assertions. The FSF's absolutist position on patents was set in stone 20 years ago. I don't see why we should be impressed if they occasionally throw a handful of pebbles at us. More to the point, the IETF IPR policy may be spot on or it may be a steaming pile of crap, but this mail bombardment by the FSF proves nothing either way. FWIW, I'm not happy with the current policy, but most of the sketches of alternatives I've seen don't seem like changes for the better. Perhaps if they were fully worked out in the form of a draft and all the loose ends were tied off I'd change my mind. Ned ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
References to Redphone's patent
Lots of the recent emails on this list refer to Redphone's patent but there is no such thing. As anyone who has ever worked with real patents knows, there is a great difference between a patent application and a patent. Whatever claims are written in patent applications are merely wishes and hopes, placeholders for negotiated language after a detailed examination of the application. Until the PTO actually issues a patent, nothing is fixed. And even then, newly-found prior art and other issues can defeat an issued patent. Why are we all so afraid of Redphone? Who gives a damn what patent claims they hope to get? There's something wrong with the IETF process if spurious and self-serving assertions that a patent application has been filed can serve to hold up progress on important technology. I wish you'd ask real patent attorneys to advise the community on this rather than react with speculation and a generalized fear of patents. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243 Skype: LawrenceRosen ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: References to Redphone's patent
Lawrence Rosen wrote: Lots of the recent emails on this list refer to Redphone's patent but there is no such thing. In my emails, I used the reference to US patent application 11/234,404 as amended on 2008/01/25. As anyone who has ever worked with real patents knows, there is a great difference between a patent application and a patent. Whatever claims are written in patent applications are merely wishes and hopes, placeholders for negotiated language after a detailed examination of the application. Until the PTO actually issues a patent, nothing is fixed. And even then, newly-found prior art and other issues can defeat an issued patent. Indeed, plus the geographical applicability restrictions that are determined 30 or 31 months after the priority date according to PCT rules - the above patent application has national or regional applications in Australia, Canadian, and the EU (I didn't check the EPO database, perhaps it's not the whole EPC member states). Why are we all so afraid of Redphone? Who gives a damn what patent claims they hope to get? I guess (i.e. speculate) that it is more convenient for the FSF to get publicity / support with a case involving a small organization without significant market presence and lobbying resources that could retaliate an FSF campaign more visibly. I thought the GnuTLS connection triggered the FSF action, but Simon corrected me on this hypothesis. There's something wrong with the IETF process if spurious and self-serving assertions that a patent application has been filed can serve to hold up progress on important technology. I wish you'd ask real patent attorneys to advise the community on this rather than react with speculation and a generalized fear of patents. I agree. You may notice that the FSF did not share (AFAIK) any result of investigation into the patent application status which would include some professional advice. Actually, two PCT/WIPO search/examination reports are on-line, and one *denies* novelty to every claims but 3 of them, and denies inventive step to all of them! The patent applicant may (further) amend the claims at the national or regional phase, but the initial assessment is not so good for the patent applicant. Check by yourself, I do not provide professional advice in here. So it's really the FSF campaign that is detracting the IETF process here in the way you are alluding above. The Redphone's IPR disclosure 1026 verbatim does not detract the IETF process. Again, finer investigations and analyses of IPR issues (finer than ideological opposition to patents) would be benefitial to the IETF. Regards, - Thierry Moreau ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: References to Redphone's patent
Thierry Moreau wrote: Check by yourself, I do not provide professional advice in here. And that's why I made my suggestion that we do these analyses in a professional manner! Too many patent-savvy attorneys (and their companies?) expect the community to decide these things in a random fashion. The IETF--collectively--needs professional advice, including from you. I will allow that you speak for yourself and offer no guarantees or warranties. But expert attorneys need to give us their expert opinions about the effects of specific patents on our specific work. That's why I'm so irritated that the previous IPR WG, since disbanded (fortunately), refused even to discuss a patent policy for IETF. Of course such studied ignorance can lead to community displays of confusion and anger. Hence the FSF campaign and others like it; entirely justified. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243 Skype: LawrenceRosen -Original Message- From: Thierry Moreau [mailto:thierry.mor...@connotech.com] Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 10:20 AM To: lro...@rosenlaw.com Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: References to Redphone's patent Lawrence Rosen wrote: Lots of the recent emails on this list refer to Redphone's patent but there is no such thing. In my emails, I used the reference to US patent application 11/234,404 as amended on 2008/01/25. As anyone who has ever worked with real patents knows, there is a great difference between a patent application and a patent. Whatever claims are written in patent applications are merely wishes and hopes, placeholders for negotiated language after a detailed examination of the application. Until the PTO actually issues a patent, nothing is fixed. And even then, newly-found prior art and other issues can defeat an issued patent. Indeed, plus the geographical applicability restrictions that are determined 30 or 31 months after the priority date according to PCT rules - the above patent application has national or regional applications in Australia, Canadian, and the EU (I didn't check the EPO database, perhaps it's not the whole EPC member states). Why are we all so afraid of Redphone? Who gives a damn what patent claims they hope to get? I guess (i.e. speculate) that it is more convenient for the FSF to get publicity / support with a case involving a small organization without significant market presence and lobbying resources that could retaliate an FSF campaign more visibly. I thought the GnuTLS connection triggered the FSF action, but Simon corrected me on this hypothesis. There's something wrong with the IETF process if spurious and self- serving assertions that a patent application has been filed can serve to hold up progress on important technology. I wish you'd ask real patent attorneys to advise the community on this rather than react with speculation and a generalized fear of patents. I agree. You may notice that the FSF did not share (AFAIK) any result of investigation into the patent application status which would include some professional advice. Actually, two PCT/WIPO search/examination reports are on-line, and one *denies* novelty to every claims but 3 of them, and denies inventive step to all of them! The patent applicant may (further) amend the claims at the national or regional phase, but the initial assessment is not so good for the patent applicant. Check by yourself, I do not provide professional advice in here. So it's really the FSF campaign that is detracting the IETF process here in the way you are alluding above. The Redphone's IPR disclosure 1026 verbatim does not detract the IETF process. Again, finer investigations and analyses of IPR issues (finer than ideological opposition to patents) would be benefitial to the IETF. Regards, - Thierry Moreau ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: References to Redphone's patent
At 10:48 AM -0800 2/13/09, Lawrence Rosen wrote: That's why I'm so irritated that the previous IPR WG, since disbanded (fortunately), refused even to discuss a patent policy for IETF. Armed with my calming cup of white tea, I point out that this is not true. The group considered the question of whether an update in this area was required, and it declined to take on any change. The current policy is that IETF participants are required to notify the IETF of any IPR which they reasonably and personally know to cover a contribution. This allows individual participants to make informed decisions about whether they wish to support work on those contributions and the WGs and IETF as a whole whether it wishes to publish the work, given the known situation. Taking that set of decisions out of the WGs and into a specialist body has substantial risks, chief among them the risk that the body's analysis of the risk does not come with insurance cover for the decisions taken by individuals. If the body says This patent application is invalidated by prior art and the patent examiners do not agree, those who have acted on that basis are in a troublesome situation. If the specialist body says This patent does not cover this draft and a court later disagrees, the same is true. Also, if the body says this patent does cover this draft, it is the WG participants who spend time and effort to develop an alternative, possibly only to later discover that they would have disagreed with the specialist body on either the coverage or the risks inherent in infringement. The IPR working group also pointed out, repeatedly, the risk in demanding that all submissions to the IETF have no known encumbrance: anyone can claim they have covering IPR at any time and use that tool to block progress on a standard. Given the value of maintaining a proprietary lock on some areas, this is a substantial risk. The IETF policy amounts to this: you must disclose what you know, and the people impacted by the decision make it. I'm sorry that irritates you, Larry, but I remain convinced that it is the right thing for the IETF. Two cents and one bag of Moonlight Spice, steeped 5 minutes, worth of opinion, Ted Hardie ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: References to Redphone's patent
Lawrence: I think we are close to intellectual agreement([0]), but see below. (Nothing to do about my personal position as an [---] advice provider.) Lawrence Rosen wrote: Thierry Moreau wrote: Check by yourself, I do not provide professional advice in here. And that's why I made my suggestion that we do these analyses in a professional manner! Too many patent-savvy attorneys (and their companies?) expect the community to decide these things in a random fashion. The IETF--collectively--needs professional advice, including from you. I will allow that you speak for yourself and offer no guarantees or warranties. But expert attorneys need to give us their expert opinions about the effects of specific patents on our specific work. That's why I'm so irritated that the previous IPR WG, since disbanded (fortunately), refused even to discuss a patent policy for IETF. Of course such studied ignorance can lead to community displays of confusion and anger. Hence the FSF campaign and others like it; entirely justified. Maybe s/justified/to be expected/? I don't quite follow how the FSF campaign may be justified if the underlying patent application details has been ignored. If among the high volume e-mails triggerd by the FSF there was one based on finer investigation and analysis, I would expect the IESG to count this one as an IETF community participation. Simon, as a GnuTLS project leader, stated he did not read the patent. You seem to suggest that studied ignorance should be fixed at the IETF/IESG institution level, and until done, the institution gets what it deserves (i.e. is hurt by FSF and othe campaigns as expected). I'm comfortable with either way, fighting studied ignorance at the participant or institution level. - Thierry Moreau [0] intellectual agreement is distinct from agreement as understood by a lawyer and agreement in the terminology used in UP patent application 11/234,404 - by the way it's Friday afternoon! ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: References to Redphone's patent
j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) writes: From: Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com 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@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
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-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Narten Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 2:31 PM To: Noel Chiappa Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: References to Redphone's patent j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) writes: From: Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com 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@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: References to Redphone's patent
Excerpts from Thomas Narten on Fri, Feb 13, 2009 03:30:41PM -0500: 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. We tried the idea and came to those conclusions. All the board could do would be to utter platitudes. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: References to Redphone's patent
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-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Powers Chuck-RXCP20 Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 12:36 PM To: Thomas Narten; Noel Chiappa Cc: ietf@ietf.org 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-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Narten Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 2:31 PM To: Noel Chiappa Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: References to Redphone's patent j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) writes: From: Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com 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@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
How we got here, RE: References to Redphone's patent
There is certainly something wrong, but the source is not necessarily the IETF. The USPTO seems to be a bigger source of the problem here. There are many problems with the current approach of leaving patent policy to groups, not least the fact that case by case negotiation on a per-working group basis is the least likely to achieve what IETF participants want. As we saw in the case of MASS, IPR holders are unlikely to make concessions in one working group unless they can expect reciprocity and that other IPR holders will be held to the same standards in other working groups. At this point we do in fact understand how to grant a right to use a patent in an open source implementation in a manner that protects the interest of the IPR holder in enforcing reciprocal rights in the standard. But at the time we did not. The concept of a cure clause only came later. There were many problems with the IETF patent process. Not least the fact that many of the participants had no idea what they were talking about. As far as I know, I was the only person to submit a proposal to that group that had a lawyer as a co-author. But that did not stop certain persons who are not lawyers and have never worked in a practices group as I have dismissing my position as being uninformed in their view. I strongly suspect that one of the reasons for the current state of the IETF IPR policy is that the only people who get sufficiently interested in it to actually attend meetings tend to be open source ideologues, representatives of large IPR holders and private consultants offering expert testimony in patent disputes. The proposal that I made then was that when a working group is started, it specify the IPR criteria under which it is chartered. In some cases it makes perfect sense to charter a group that will be using encumbered technology. In other cases the entire purpose of the group requires that any technology be open and unencumbered. I also proposed that rather than attempting to create yet another patent policy, that the IETF simply outsource the approach. In OASIS a working group specifies the IPR policy at the start and may choose either an open or a proprietary one. In W3C all groups are required to have an open policy. What that means in practice is that it is possible to have a specification that has optional extensions that are encumbered or purportedly encumbered. But it must be possible to implement the spec without using the encumbered options. Both policies are in theory vulnerable to the type of denial of standard by bogus assertion of IPR rights attack described. But in practice so are implementations. -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of Lawrence Rosen Sent: Fri 2/13/2009 11:18 AM To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: References to Redphone's patent Lots of the recent emails on this list refer to Redphone's patent but there is no such thing. As anyone who has ever worked with real patents knows, there is a great difference between a patent application and a patent. Whatever claims are written in patent applications are merely wishes and hopes, placeholders for negotiated language after a detailed examination of the application. Until the PTO actually issues a patent, nothing is fixed. And even then, newly-found prior art and other issues can defeat an issued patent. Why are we all so afraid of Redphone? Who gives a damn what patent claims they hope to get? There's something wrong with the IETF process if spurious and self-serving assertions that a patent application has been filed can serve to hold up progress on important technology. I wish you'd ask real patent attorneys to advise the community on this rather than react with speculation and a generalized fear of patents. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243 Skype: LawrenceRosen ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: References to Redphone's patent
No, please do not go there. You do not want negotiating flexibility in this type of situation. Instead of looking how to arrive at a deal, the IETF needs to think about structuring the incentives so that there is no gain for a patent troll. -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of Thomas Narten Sent: Fri 2/13/2009 3:30 PM To: Noel Chiappa Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: References to Redphone's patent j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) writes: From: Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com 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@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: References to Redphone's patent
From: Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com 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. ... It will still come down to someone else trying to tell *me* (or you) that I (or you) shouldn't worry about something ... I am aware of all that (just as I am aware that until the judge/jury have their say, advice from an attorney is just that, advice). What that says to me is that anything from an IPR consulting board would have to carry appropriate warning boilerplate about these sorts of issues. Still, I think a lot of people in the IETF would find the professional opinions of a competent expert _useful data_. Bearing in mind the complexities of patent legalese, etc, etc, even having someone say 'this is what IMO the claims mean, in English' would probaly be useful to a lot of people. (Lord knows I find claims incomprehensible sometimes without a lot of study - and I've been an expert witness in several patent suits!) Even having their interpretation in front of you would probably be a substantial help if/when you try and read the patent/filing yourself. And there are all sorts of other useful data a patent attorney could offer. To take but one example, Thierry Moreau's revelations today that for the RedPhone application, a PCT/WIPO examination report denies novelty to all claims but three is most interesting - but I would have no idea how to find such things, if in fact I even knew they existed, and could be looked for. (Which I didn't - and I have done an international patent, albeit some years ago now!) Also, most people involved in a business think it prudent to consult with an attorney to gain detailed advice on legal issues that pertain to their business dealings - why does the IETF think it has no need of similar expert advice? Yes, any such advice has limits, but is no advice really better than advice with limits? (And in passing, anyone who has consulted extensively with attorneys in business matters eventually understands that all the attorney can really do is offer advice - in the end, someone else has to make the decision, because turning over decision-making to the attorneys is usually not fruitful.) To put it another way, experts have expertise in various fields, and it's unwise to ignore expertise. You and I would think a lawyer who tried to design a network, without asking advice from a network engineer, to be acting unwisely, and to try and deal with _legal_ issues, without advice from a _legal expert_, is to me equally unwise. This is fundamentally an individual decision that every implementor needs to make on their own. Implentors will of course need to make their own individual decisions - but again, anyone so making such decisions would be well-advised to either i) consult an attorney, or ii) be associated with an organization that did it for them. Since a lot of people, especially lone implementors, aren't in a position to do i), even an imperfect form of ii) (i.e. reading legal analysis provided by expert contributors in the IETF, at the time the standard was drafted) is IMO better than being thrown into the deep end without knowing how to swim in legalese. Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How we got here, RE: References to Redphone's patent
Phill, On 2009-02-14 10:41, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: ... The proposal that I made then was that when a working group is started, it specify the IPR criteria under which it is chartered. In some cases it makes perfect sense to charter a group that will be using encumbered technology. In other cases the entire purpose of the group requires that any technology be open and unencumbered. We've been round that argument enough times that it's become a tradition. A priori rules like that make no sense for the IETF. 1. They inhibit innovative thinking within the WG process, because they mean that the major technical options must basically be decided before you start, so that you can decide which IPR regime is going to work. And if you decide a priori to be RF, the available solutions are dramatically constrained. Or to say it more emotively: all the good ideas have been patented anyway. 2. They would assist the patent trolls, who could make sure to quietly acquire patents that encumber the 'royalty free' solution just in time for the standard to be widely adopted. Leaving the choice until later in the process isn't perfect, but it reduces these two risks and matches the reality of IPR laws and practices, which are heavily based on RAND and reciprocity, like it or not. IMHO, as always. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: How we got here, RE: References to Redphone's patent
In my view major technical options should be decided before you start. This is a standards process, not an invention process. I do not design protocols in committee, never have, never will. That type of work was possible when there were 40 people coming to IETF meetings and the problem was coordinating independent research projects. It is not a sensible use of people's time to do the type of unconstrained investigation you suggest with more than five people in the room. Understanding the cost of the materials you intend to use is a key part of being an engineer. I like to work from price on the page catalogs. If a supplier wants to play 'guess my price' then I look to do the job another way. What you suggest increases the leverage of patent trolls. The more working group effort is sunk into the idea that they claim proprietary ownership of, the more leverage they have. Moreover nobody can implement until the IPR issues are fully understood. -Original Message- From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] Sent: Fri 2/13/2009 6:40 PM To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: How we got here, RE: References to Redphone's patent Phill, On 2009-02-14 10:41, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: ... The proposal that I made then was that when a working group is started, it specify the IPR criteria under which it is chartered. In some cases it makes perfect sense to charter a group that will be using encumbered technology. In other cases the entire purpose of the group requires that any technology be open and unencumbered. We've been round that argument enough times that it's become a tradition. A priori rules like that make no sense for the IETF. 1. They inhibit innovative thinking within the WG process, because they mean that the major technical options must basically be decided before you start, so that you can decide which IPR regime is going to work. And if you decide a priori to be RF, the available solutions are dramatically constrained. Or to say it more emotively: all the good ideas have been patented anyway. 2. They would assist the patent trolls, who could make sure to quietly acquire patents that encumber the 'royalty free' solution just in time for the standard to be widely adopted. Leaving the choice until later in the process isn't perfect, but it reduces these two risks and matches the reality of IPR laws and practices, which are heavily based on RAND and reciprocity, like it or not. IMHO, as always. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: How we got here, RE: References to Redphone's patent
I'll also add that we have now many working groups closing in on their ten-year anniversary, with a dozen RFCs to their credit. (DHC and AVT are probably among the oldest, but there are many others not far behind. AVT has about 90 RFCs listed.) I don't see how one can create a model that predicts the future that far ahead, and can be readily applicable across the range of items being specified. What's appropriate for a base spec may not be appropriate or necessary for a special-purpose extension. Whether this WG model is a good one is another question, but it would seem peculiar to have the IPR model dictate how WGs are run in practice. (I suspect the pragmatic outcome would be that, say, RAI would have one WG for each IPR flavor...) Also, most of the IPR these days seems to be filed by third parties, other than the I-D authors, often long after the I-D has been accepted as a WG item. (I think it would be interesting to do some statistics on who actually does the filing and at what stage of the I-D.) It would also be interesting to know whether any RFC author company has actually sued somebody for patent infringement, vs. the dozens of suits where third parties are involved. By now, we should have a fair amount of empirical data to know where the real threats are. Henning On Feb 13, 2009, at 6:40 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Phill, On 2009-02-14 10:41, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: ... The proposal that I made then was that when a working group is started, it specify the IPR criteria under which it is chartered. In some cases it makes perfect sense to charter a group that will be using encumbered technology. In other cases the entire purpose of the group requires that any technology be open and unencumbered. We've been round that argument enough times that it's become a tradition. A priori rules like that make no sense for the IETF. 1. They inhibit innovative thinking within the WG process, because they mean that the major technical options must basically be decided before you start, so that you can decide which IPR regime is going to work. And if you decide a priori to be RF, the available solutions are dramatically constrained. Or to say it more emotively: all the good ideas have been patented anyway. 2. They would assist the patent trolls, who could make sure to quietly acquire patents that encumber the 'royalty free' solution just in time for the standard to be widely adopted. Leaving the choice until later in the process isn't perfect, but it reduces these two risks and matches the reality of IPR laws and practices, which are heavily based on RAND and reciprocity, like it or not. IMHO, as always. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: References to Redphone's patent
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 IETF does have a patent policy. It is at RFC 3979. It may not be to everyone's liking, but it does exist. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
