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

[John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com>]

--On Wednesday, 17 January, 2007 12:49 -0800 Lawrence Rosen
<lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> 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. 

Certainly individuals sensitive to the needs and concerns of
such a company should vigorously oppose any WG action that would
develop a standard whose provisions require practicing a patent
for which there are no assurances that licenses will be
available.

> 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.

Assuming that the decisions of those WGs are "whims" is either
more hyperbole or deeply insulting to the people who participate
in them.  What I've seen in the IETF, in practice, is a
significant distaste for encumbered technologies coupled with a
willingness to face reality when something sufficiently
important cannot be standardized without dependence on something
encumbered. The Public Key Crypto issue mentioned earlier stands
out as an example and I believe that we made the right decision,
rather than ignoring the issues and waiting for all of the
relevant patents to expire (which appeared to be the only other
choice).  You may disagree, of course.

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

And forgive us, including those of us who are not engineers, for
resisting having the IETF turn into a playground for lawyers who
want us to adopt sweeping policy rules that would prevent us
from making finely-tuned decisions in the best interests of the
Internet.

       john


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