On 11.7.2012 09:57 , "John Leslie" <j...@jlc.net> wrote: >Stephan Wenger <st...@stewe.org> wrote: >>... >> It is, in most cases, not to the advantage of a rightholder to disclose >> a patent unless he is undeniably obligated to do so... > > This is a really strange statement, at first blush. > > So I ask Stephan to clarify what he meant to say (before I react to >it).
The vast majority of non-third-party patent disclosures are made by the rightholder's legal, and not only discloses the patent, but also promises certain licensing terms (most often RAND, RF, or a non-assert promises that has many similarities with an RF license). (This is a shortcut of the official procedure which would require the IETF brass to ask for licensing terms after an disclosure without terms has been made.) Having made such a statement restricts the freedom of business of the rightholder with respect to these patents. Restricting the freedom of business is usually not a useful thing for a business. Further, the mere knowledge of the existence of a patent claim against a specification can derail the inclusion of that technique from the draft. Assuming the technique was proposed not only for the benefit of getting a patent in, but for other motives (which, I hope, is still the case of the vast majority of contributions made to the IETF--I'm not so sure in some other standards bodies :-), having a patent disclosure against it is not to the advantage of the proponent. Of course, the legal folks also have to keep in mind that not disclosing a patent also can have negative consequences if that patent were asserted against the standard later. So they check very carefully whether they are "undeniably required to" make a disclosure, but if they think they are, they also make such a disclosure. Gaming the system by over-declaring (to kill a technology through FUD) or especially under-declaring (in the hopes to get a patented technology in the standard without agreeing to encumbrances) is known to have happened, but it's IMO really not that big an issue any more--mostly, because courts have brought the hammer down on rightholders who tried. Clearer? Stephan > >-- >John Leslie <j...@jlc.net> >
