Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>]

On 2007-10-19 12:10, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> [I stripped cc's from this reply]
>
> Brian Carpenter wrote:
> > > Violent disagreement. That would make all kinds of a priori
> > > processes kick in for employees of patent-conscious companies, and
> > > generally inhibit free discussion of initial ideas. Although it's
> > > messier to confront patent issues later in the process, I believe
> > > that is much better than constraining participation at the
> > > beginning.
>  
> Scott Brim responded: 
> > +1
> > Otherwise you get into battles over theory and ideology without any of
> > the information you need to make a decision.  You will still be able
> > to take your stance once the technical tradeoffs are worked out.
>
> Strong -1 to Brian's and Scott's comments.
>
> Isn't it preferable to get into early battles over IP rules--and make sure
> those rules are clear to WG participants--before we have wasted our time and
> resources developing specifications that half the world (or more) can't
> implement?
>
> Has anyone ever suggested that we inhibit "free discussion of initial
> ideas"? 

If you work for a large company with a managed approach to
innovation and IPR handling, you simply aren't allowed
to discuss freely in an SDO unless the SDO's IPR regime
has been approved by the company. If you have a different
IPR regime for every WG, the stage that in the current IETF
is a wide and open discussion (including a BOF), when
innovative ideas are put on the table, would be replaced
by a careful dance among elephants about hypothetical IPR
covering hypothetical technology. That does indeed inhibit
free discussion of technical ideas.

I don't think we want that, which is why I believe the
IETF's IPR regime is just fine as it is.

    Brian

> Please don't raise silly arguments like that. Among the most
> exciting discussions of ideas are those that come from having to design
> around a patent that isn't available for free.
>
> /Larry Rosen
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Scott Brim [mailto:swb at employees.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:12 PM
> > To: Brian E Carpenter
> > Cc: Simon Josefsson; ietf at ietf.org; Tim Polk
> > Subject: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-
> > authz-extns]
> >
> > On 19 Oct 2007 at 10:30 +1300, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
> > > On 2007-10-19 05:47, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> > > > What I would suggest is that new working groups be required to
> > > > specify the governing IPR rules in their charter, these would be
> > > > either that all IPR must be offered according to an open grant on
> > > > W3C terms or that the working group specifies at the outset that
> > > > RAND terms are acceptable.
> > > Violent disagreement. That would make all kinds of a priori
> > > processes kick in for employees of patent-conscious companies, and
> > > generally inhibit free discussion of initial ideas. Although it's
> > > messier to confront patent issues later in the process, I believe
> > > that is much better than constraining participation at the
> > > beginning.
> > +1
> >
> > Otherwise you get into battles over theory and ideology without any of
> > the information you need to make a decision.  You will still be able
> > to take your stance once the technical tradeoffs are worked out.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf at ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf