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