On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, John C Klensin wrote:
First of all, the patent system, since its origins, encourages
an inventor to disclose the invention --in sufficient detail
that it can be implemented and tested-- to encourage general
discussion, the advancement of science and technology, and so
on.
The above is not true. The above describes the US patent system. When
the US Constitution was adopted, its provisions were a significant
change to the European (English) patent system. In fact, patents can be
traced back to Ancient Greece. In the medieval period, patents were
unrestricted royal grants of monopolies, and remained so until Statute
of Monopolies was passed in 1623. Note that the Statute of Monopolies
was a reaction AGAINST unrestricted patent monopolies. The US
Constitution further limited patents, and made them for the advancement
of science and the useful arts.
Parts of several of your notes imply that, as a consequence of having
applied for, or even being granted, a patent, you have the right to
control discussion of the technology or to prevent additional work
that is inspired by it. I believe that the technical term to describe
that position --whether it is really the one you intended to take or
not -- is "complete nonsense".
I think the above is only one aspect of Mr. Glassey's position, and I
agree his examples are not convincing. However, we aren't debating the
examples per se, but are debating the licensing policy and the
implications of the licensing policy. On that, I think Mr. Glassey
would be better served to explain his examples in terms of indirect
infringement or contributory infringement. But in either case, the IETF
does have serious problems with its licensing policy, particularly with
accountability.
However, the assertion by Mr. Glassey that IETF licensing policy has an
impact on patent owners is true, and the questions asked about the
impact are not "stupid".
Indeed, I've had a discussion on another list where the IETF participant
asserted that "uncertainty" was sufficient justification to encourage to
disregard the patent. He didn't seem to respect his duty of due
diligence, and his attitude and baseless assertions seemed to me to make
a good example of indirect infringement.
The IETF's IPR policies are designed to protect the process from
someone who patents an idea and then tries to get it turned into
a Standard that would require licensing in a way that catches
everyone by surprise --especially if a WG that knew about the
patent might have tried to devise a mechanism that didn't depend
on it. They are also designed to balance the copyright
interests of authors and editors against the needs of the IETF
to be able to work on and develop documents and the needs of
implementers to use those documents as part of their
implementations.
We already experienced this exact scenario in TLS-Authz. Then we
experienced nearly the same thing again recently with
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tls-ecc-new-mac-07.txt
(See TLS archive on subject "Re: [TLS] Document Action: 'TLS Elliptic
Curve Cipher Suites with SHA-256/384 and AES Galois Counter Mode' to
Informational RFC" IETF WG Chairs and IETF Participants still seem to
believe that RFC3979 compliance is optional.
To date, there has been no accountability for RFC3979 violations, except
that TLS-Authz has lost approval as an RFC, but ICANN still (improperly)
publishes the code points. Effectively, nothing has happened. The IETF
Chair Housley was involved in the TLS-Authz misconduct, and yet remains
IETF Chair. It is therefore no surprise that WG Chairs are not following
RFC3979. I find it difficult to believe that IETF Chair Russ Housley,
himself a flagrant violator of the IETF Policy, will now uphold the IETF
policy. It is curious that Housley should be asked to control the
discussion; that's rather like asking the Gambino's to control the
discussion of RICO legislation. The IETF process here is a sham.
--Dean
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.5/1569 - Release Date: 7/23/2008
1:31 PM