Hi Barry, The charter says:
The WG will prefer algorithms or tools where there are verifiable reasons to believe they are available on an RF basis over algorithms or tools where there is RF uncertainty or known active IPR claims with royalty liability potential. The codec specification will document why it believes that each part is likely to be RF, which will help adoption of the codec. This can include references to old prior art and/or patent research information. You seem to have two issues: one being that some individuals may not be able to participate because patent searches or demonstrations of prior art may be required and these are forbidden to them; the other being that the IETF as a body should not make declarations about the IPR status of a piece of work. Even if the working group were to have no formal analysis or declaration of the IPR status of particular approaches in its output, the goal of this work would be frustrated if it were forbidden from talking on its mailing list about the participants' understandings of the IPR relevant to their or others' contributions. That might include the results of those participants' patent searches or other experience. Allowing that in the discussion of what methods should be adopted is within our rules as I understand them, as individual participants are making their own decisions on what paths to pursue. This is simply data they may choose to take into account, or not, as they see fit. (Since this might occur in any mailing list working toward a specific technology now, my impression is that someone who wished their employees not to be so exposed would have to direct them not to participate, full stop.) I think that issue is not simply separable from the question of whether the IETF could or should issue an RFC making IPR claims, but it should be separated. Jorge may very well advise the IESG that the IETF cannot or should not draw conclusions on the IPR status of specific methods. But that should not mean, at least in my view, that IETF participants cannot share their own views on those matters on one of our mailing lists. Our openness to participation does not require us to shield potential participants from forbidden knowledge; they have to do that for themselves. My two cents as an individual, regards, Ted On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Barry Leiba <[email protected]> wrote: > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-netvc-00-00: Block > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-netvc/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > BLOCK: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The IESG has discussed this issue on last week's informal call, and we > have asked the IAOC legal committee to comment. We have some > response so far, and we're waiting for Jorge to weigh in. > > > The WG will prefer algorithms or tools where there are verifiable > > reasons to believe they are available on an RF basis over algorithms > or > > tools where there is RF uncertainty or known active IPR claims with > > royalty liability potential. The codec specification will document why > > it believes that each part is likely to be RF, which will help > adoption > > of the codec. This can include references to old prior art and/or > patent > > research information. > > We are pretty explicit, in general, that working groups do NOT > evaluate patents and other intellectual property, and there are good > reasons for that. Some companies would have problems with their > employees participating in such discussions. Discussions of that > nature can put people into positions where they become aware of > patents they otherwise would not, and that their employers would > prefer that they didn't. > > I think that at the very least, we should loop the IAOC legal > committee and/or Jorge into this, and make sure they are/he is OK with > having anything about patent research information in a working group > charter. I know that many companies do not allow their employees to > do patent searches and evaluations without explicit permission. > > I worry that such a discussion will either make it impossible for some > people to participate, or cause some people's participation to > unintentionally violate their employers' policies. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I certainly support this charter. I have two concerns, one minor, one > not so minor. The not-so-minor one is above, in the "discuss" box. > > The minor one is here: > > << > 5. A collection of test results, either from tests conducted by the > working group or made publicly available elsewhere, characterizing the > performance of the codec. This document shall be informational. > >> > > I'm really happy that the deliverables are, in general, specified in > terms of what will be delivered, and not how it will be laid out in > how many documents of what sort. Thanks! > > Related to that: > I strongly urge that we strike the last sentence in item 5. Actually, > I prefer that we replace it with an explicit statement that the > collection might live in the working group wiki (or github, or > whatever), and might not be published as an RFC at all. But I'd be > happy with just striking the reference to publishing a document. > > > _______________________________________________ > video-codec mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec >
_______________________________________________ video-codec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec
