RE: IETF Patent policy (was RE: IETF Trust FAQ)

["Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>]

Ted Hardie wrote:
> That is why it is key that the IETF remain committed to open standards
> in the sense that has been true here all along:  open participation and
> open availability.  That makes sure anyone who cares can have a voice.
> Efforts to pre-dispose the playing field toward specific patent/license
> regimes *reduce* the openness of the IETF, as they discourage some
> players who would otherwise participate.

Unfortunately that way you define "open availability" doesn't ensure that
IETF standards can be implemented in open source software. Those standards
aren't open enough, AFAICare. 

But my earlier point was broader than that even: This proposed IETF policy
doesn't even work for private companies seeking proprietary solutions. There
is no advantage to participate in setting industry standards that come with
no promise even of RAND patent licenses, much less free ones. 

If the owners of private patents want to play with other companies in
private arenas for private standards, that's fine with me. But that is not
what I see as IETF's mission, or rather it is not part of any mission I
consider important for free and open source software. 

Leaving these matters, as you recommend, to the whims and wishes of
individual IETF working groups and later licenses TBD isn't a solution for
anyone. Decide now that the IETF is a form of public trust and not just an
engineer's playground*, and act accordingly.

/Larry Rosen

* Forgive me, my engineer friends, for this bit of hyperbole. 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Hardie [mailto:hardie at qualcomm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 11:09 AM
> To: lrosen at rosenlaw.com; ipr-wg at ietf.org
> Subject: IETF Patent policy (was RE: IETF Trust FAQ)
> 
> >At 8:39 PM -0800 1/16/07, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> >Then I suppose we should take this decision public and see whether that
> >encourages better results. I am absolutely opposed to any IETF IP policy
> >that results in industry standards that have fundamental patent
> impediments
> >to their implementation in open source--and for that matter in
> >proprietary--software. Jorge just confirmed this to the group, in case
> >anyone doubts that our current policy has this effect.
> 
> >I'd rather see this WG dissolve right now than to see it publish an IP
> >policy that doesn't work for anyone.
> 
> The patent policy of the IETF boils down to "The WG decides based on
> information
> which its participants are required to provide".  WGs can and do decide
> to decline to make standard technologies that have fundamental patent
> impediments.  They also can, and have, decided that a particular
> technology is so useful that it should be made standard despite
> the fundamental patents--public key crypto being the most cited
> example.  The key aspect of the IETF's policy is that it is the
> participants
> who make the judgement call.  If someone invents a faster-than-light
> data transport based on quantum entanglement, patents it, then asks for
> the IETF's help in making IP run on it, the IETF participants interested
> get to decide whether having FTL transport is worth dealing with the
> patent.  It isn't pre-decided for them; it's a judgement call.
> 
> That is why it is key that the IETF remain committed to open standards
> in the sense that has been true here all along:  open participation and
> open availability.  That makes sure anyone who cares can have a voice.
> Efforts to pre-dispose the playing field toward specific patent/license
> regimes *reduce* the openness of the IETF, as they discourage some
> players who would otherwise participate.
> 
> 				Ted Hardie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg