I'll also add that we have now many working groups closing in on their
ten-year anniversary, with a dozen RFCs to their credit. (DHC and AVT
are probably among the oldest, but there are many others not far
behind. AVT has about 90 RFCs listed.) I don't see how one can create
a model that predicts the future that far ahead, and can be readily
applicable across the range of items being specified. What's
appropriate for a base spec may not be appropriate or necessary for a
special-purpose extension.
Whether this WG model is a good one is another question, but it would
seem peculiar to have the IPR model dictate how WGs are run in
practice. (I suspect the pragmatic outcome would be that, say, RAI
would have one WG for each IPR flavor...)
Also, most of the IPR these days seems to be filed by third parties,
other than the I-D authors, often long after the I-D has been accepted
as a WG item. (I think it would be interesting to do some statistics
on who actually does the filing and at what stage of the I-D.) It
would also be interesting to know whether any RFC author company has
actually sued somebody for patent infringement, vs. the dozens of
suits where third parties are involved. By now, we should have a fair
amount of empirical data to know where the real threats are.
Henning
On Feb 13, 2009, at 6:40 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Phill,
On 2009-02-14 10:41, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
...
The proposal that I made then was that when a working group is
started, it specify the IPR criteria under which it is chartered.
In some cases it makes perfect sense to charter a group that will
be using encumbered technology. In other cases the entire purpose
of the group requires that any technology be open and unencumbered.
We've been round that argument enough times that it's become a
tradition.
A priori rules like that make no sense for the IETF.
1. They inhibit innovative thinking within the WG process, because
they mean that the major technical options must basically be
decided before you start, so that you can decide which IPR regime
is going to work. And if you decide a priori to be RF, the available
solutions are dramatically constrained. Or to say it more emotively:
all the good ideas have been patented anyway.
2. They would assist the patent trolls, who could make sure to
quietly acquire patents that encumber the 'royalty free' solution
just in time for the standard to be widely adopted.
Leaving the choice until later in the process isn't perfect,
but it reduces these two risks and matches the reality of
IPR laws and practices, which are heavily based on RAND and
reciprocity, like it or not.
IMHO, as always.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
