Re: Call for volunteers to discuss IETF patent policy with Richard Stallman

[TSG <tglassey at earthlink.net>]

Richard M Stallman wrote:
> I cannot post anything in a group whose name uses the term
> "intellectual property" without saying first that I think it is a
> mistake to make any statement using that term.  

> It encourages
> overgeneralization, and is too broad to be of use in meaningful
> statements.  
No, its supposed to be a catchall "for processes which define issues of 
intellectual property law which would impact a open collaboration 
process for developing technology standards pertaining to networking and 
the operations of the standards process"... one which by the way relies 
on corporate and academic sponsorship.
> See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html for more
> explanation.
>
> The issue here concerns patents and only patents.  
Patents are a part of the Intellectual Property Framework that enables 
the Trade Agreements between the populace of this planet so what you are 
talking about is a process that intentionally ignores or creates a 
process to subvert the rule of law.
> To use the term
> "intellectual property" in discussing it would confuse the issue by
> bringing in other disparate laws.
>
>     It is unreasonable to ban all patents, since patents may be used 
>     defensively in accordance with LPF principles and statements. It is also 
>     possible that a patented technology might be so fundamental, that a 
>     standard _must_ be approved no matter the cost.
>
> A patented standard for software is worse than no standard, because it
> functions to augment the patent holder's stranglehold over society.
>   
I am sorry - this statement is not only biased its just plain wrong. The 
stranglehold painted in this comment is only if the IETF refuses to 
become a truly open standards process so that there can be any number of 
standards issued for any area. Othewrwise the exclusivity of an IETF 
standard becomes a tactical and strategic weapon. One which no one 
should have including the FSF itself.

Oh and Richard - the 454 Shotwell facility was better used IMO as the 
School of Holography

:-)

http://www.jfairstein.com/SOH.html

> What everyone ought to do is resist it.
>
> As long as the IETF allows patented standards for software, anyone can
> argue about any proposed patented standard that it important enough to
> excuse the patent.  
"Excuse the patent"?  Ahahahahah - see what I mean. This isnt about 
being open its a lobbyist effort to kill off patents by excluding 
patented IP from the IETF standards process.
> Others can argue that it is not, but since that is
> a question of judgment, the conclusion is never inevitable.  So the
> risk is always broader than it might appear.
>
> I am looking for people who would like to join in trying to change
> this policy.  I'll discuss it further with those who are interested.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>
>