Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.
- Original Message - From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "TS Glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "IETF Discussion" ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:53 AM Subject: Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP. Todd, I see your point about the cost of producing standards. However, having been both on the vendor and service provider sides of the street, I can tell you that most (all?) service providers generally require their vendors to implement standards so that their products are interoperable and meet particular requirements - in an RFP, it's much easier to put in a list of RFCs, ITU-T recommendations, etc., rather than have to list every individual requirement. yes - as an after the fact model... As a result, vendors don't generally specifically track their standards participation costs - it's just a part of the cost of doing business in a particular market. Not true from my experience auditing company's. Most company's who regularly rely on the Standards Dev Process as part of their operations have those broken down in a number of areas including Employee Wellfare which is ludicrous since the IETF has nothing to do with Human Welfare/ It all goes back to the light bulb as a great example of standards setting - back before there was a standard base for bulbs, I'm sure every light bulb manufacturer had a vested interest in their pre-standard bases and sockets - whether it screwed left or right or used push-in pins, the size of the base, etc., and sent people to the meetings to represent their interests when that particular standard was being set. It was just a necessary cost of being in the light bulb business at that particular time. Cheers, Andy On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 8:54 PM, TS Glassey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "TS Glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "IETF Discussion" ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 2:53 PM Subject: Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP. Todd, I generally agree with Tim that it would be difficult to put a value on any IETF submission without an actual transfer of assets of some sort to set a price. The costs of replicating the works - say from a tech writer skilled in an area is a reasonable place to start. Take the hourly rate and then multiply that times the number of hours involved and the number of people. I suggested that the unbundling of the R&D costs was appropriate since all the IETF publishes is a set of document-standards per se. However, in general, if a company feels that there is IPR value in technology they are going to include in a submission (and this really deals with ANY kind of standards submission, not just to the IETF), How do you figure they 'deal' with how much it costs to send people to the IETF several times a year. Also to cover the costs of their local participation. they will most probably submit a patent application prior to the standards submission. So the existence of a patent declaration accompanying the submission at least provides a clue that the submitting company feels that there is some value there (else they wouldn't have bothered with the patent application). Only if there is a real program inside the Sponsor to accomplish that. This is one of the issues in the IETF. There are many who are really enamored with the idea that the IETF is a fraternal benevolent society rather than a Intellectual Proeperty War Chest disguised cleverly as an International Networking SDO. However, a value generally can't be set until the company actually starts to issue patent licenses. The value could be as little as zero if no other companies feel compelled to license the technology. As always, the "value of the workproduct", as you put it, is set by the market. But the costs of creating it are not. That was the point. The baseline is the costs of replacing the written work. Cheers, Andy On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 8:27 AM, TS Glassey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Since there is now a specific value estimated by the LINUX community at 1.4B for the kernel itself Hey, I've done an analysis and found that my toenail clippings are worth $3.8762 billion. That kernel-valuation exercise is the silliest kind of science fiction. Let me let you in on a little secret: Everything in the world has a value, and that value is exactly what people are prepared to pay for it. No more, no less. On payment of a generous consulting fee, I would be delighted to "estimate a specific value" for any given RFC or even I-D. I'll even issue gold-framed certificates you can mount on the wall. -Tim , the IETF can no longer hide its head in the sand claiming that its workproduct has no specific value. This also means that ANY AND ALL contributions to the IETF no matter when they happen
RE: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.
Exactly, replacing SMTP for email alone is a non-starter. But it is entirely possible to replace a subset of SMTP functionality that the protocol handles poorly or provide a better superset. For example, NNTP gots its start by providing a more efficient means of distributing mailing lists. RSS is now plugging the same niche in a much more scalable manner. Alternatively, it is quite possible that a future protocol might address asynchronous and synchronous messaging in a wide spectrum of media (short message, mail messag, audio, video) in a better fashion than is provided in separate protocols today. The key here however is the fact that switching costs for 'email' are not the same as switching costs for 'SMTP'. Providing new protocol servers also support the old, a transition could leverage the DNS to effect a seamless transition. SRV and DNS policy signalling are your friend. That said, any new protocol would have to use the DNS and MIME content types at a minimum. From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 10/28/2008 1:12 PM To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Andrew G. Malis Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; IETF Discussion Subject: RE: placing a dollar value on IETF IP. --On Tuesday, 28 October, 2008 08:02 -0700 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >... > It is also a neat rebuttal to the claim that network effects > do not exist - as Margolis and co claimed in their laughable > tract. If the issue were decided on technical grounds alone > the US and Europe would have chosen the same base years ago. > The US has not moved to the superior Swan mount because the > short term switching costs outweigh the long term advantages. > Change is only possible when a technology disruption occurs > that negates the advantage of the legacy base. In the case of > lightbulbs it is compact flourescents and LED bulbs, in the > case of keyboards it would probably take really good > handwriting recognition. One could, of course, make many of the same observations about replacing SMTP and/or today's Internet mail formats with some newly-invented and improved system, replacing HTTP with something more elegantly designed based on what we know about computer systems today, etc., as well as failure to harmonize residential supply voltages around the world. Whether the problem is one of network effects or the related one of the costs of replacing/ converting a large installed base, the consequences are the same: mere incremental technical superiority is almost never sufficient to motivate an incompatible change. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.
- Original Message - From: "Douglas Otis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Michael Dillon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:24 AM Subject: Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP. On Oct 28, 2008, at 8:03 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Interoperability of standards is a hard-won prize, whether in the IETF or elsewhere. The cost of producing documents is a mere drop in the bucket. In addition, cost is a very slippery thing to get ahold of because of the difference between expenses and investments. Agreed. The prize may go to the influential, rather than being decided on merit. In the end, it is often about either supporting a service or the cost of a service. The goal, and not the cost, is what is important. Which Doug is why the IETF needs to be totally open and transparent. Let the market decide on whether a standard gets acceptance or not. The IETF's process should be totally revamped so that there is NO VOTING on anything other than what a standard will be for a given initiative when that initiative is approved. From that point on its only about whether the standards process meets its interim milestones. There is NO OTHER way to make the IETF fair for all concerned. Todd -Doug ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1752 - Release Date: 10/28/2008 10:04 AM ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.
--On Tuesday, 28 October, 2008 08:02 -0700 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >... > It is also a neat rebuttal to the claim that network effects > do not exist - as Margolis and co claimed in their laughable > tract. If the issue were decided on technical grounds alone > the US and Europe would have chosen the same base years ago. > The US has not moved to the superior Swan mount because the > short term switching costs outweigh the long term advantages. > Change is only possible when a technology disruption occurs > that negates the advantage of the legacy base. In the case of > lightbulbs it is compact flourescents and LED bulbs, in the > case of keyboards it would probably take really good > handwriting recognition. One could, of course, make many of the same observations about replacing SMTP and/or today's Internet mail formats with some newly-invented and improved system, replacing HTTP with something more elegantly designed based on what we know about computer systems today, etc., as well as failure to harmonize residential supply voltages around the world. Whether the problem is one of network effects or the related one of the costs of replacing/ converting a large installed base, the consequences are the same: mere incremental technical superiority is almost never sufficient to motivate an incompatible change. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.
On Oct 28, 2008, at 8:03 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Interoperability of standards is a hard-won prize, whether in the IETF or elsewhere. The cost of producing documents is a mere drop in the bucket. In addition, cost is a very slippery thing to get ahold of because of the difference between expenses and investments. Agreed. The prize may go to the influential, rather than being decided on merit. In the end, it is often about either supporting a service or the cost of a service. The goal, and not the cost, is what is important. -Doug ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.
Since you brought it up, I am sure many readers of this list have never heard of Swan, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Swan He did indeed invent the lightbulb and all of us Newcastle alumni know only too well ;-) Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > There was indeed a major struggle over the standardization of the > light bulb socket. And the sad part is that due to patent > encumberances the US unfortunately ended up with the inferior > product! > Neither Swan nor Edison thought much about the mount. It was Swan's > brother who did most to refine and perfect the base. Edison's screw > thread came lose leading Swan to invent the bayonet mount. He also > invented Vitrite, the glassy substance used as an insulator. > There was something of a platform war which led to calls for a > standard base as misconfigured adaptors were causing houses to burn > down. The Edison thread won in the US because the patent had expired > and everyone could use it without royalty. > It is also a neat rebuttal to the claim that network effects do not > exist - as Margolis and co claimed in their laughable tract. If the > issue were decided on technical grounds alone the US and Europe > would have chosen the same base years ago. The US has not moved to > the superior Swan mount because the short term switching costs > outweigh the long term advantages. Change is only possible when a > technology disruption occurs that negates the advantage of the > legacy base. In the case of lightbulbs it is compact flourescents > and LED bulbs, in the case of keyboards it would probably take > really good handwriting recognition. > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.
> It all goes back to the light bulb as a great example of > standards setting - back before there was a standard base for > bulbs, I'm sure every light bulb manufacturer had a vested > interest in their pre-standard bases and sockets - whether it > screwed left or right or used push-in pins, the size of the > base, etc., You haven't tried to buy light-bulbs in England, have you? The choice is bayonet mount, or screw mount, then several size bases, not to mention halogen and spotlight mounts. If you've traveled much in Europe you will notice similar confusion with the standard plug shape. They all have the same size and position of pins but only the Swiss hexagonal plug will fit in all the sockets. Even the countries with the same size round socket and plugs managed to place the ground/earth connections in different places. And let's not mention the Soviet Union's GOST standard where the pins are 1mm in diameter smaller and 1 mm further apart. That's the reason for the split pins on many plug adapters because they have enough flex to work in sockets in Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan etc. Interoperability of standards is a hard-won prize, whether in the IETF or elsewhere. The cost of producing documents is a mere drop in the bucket. In addition, cost is a very slippery thing to get ahold of because of the difference between expenses and investments. --Michael Dillon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.
There was indeed a major struggle over the standardization of the light bulb socket. And the sad part is that due to patent encumberances the US unfortunately ended up with the inferior product! Neither Swan nor Edison thought much about the mount. It was Swan's brother who did most to refine and perfect the base. Edison's screw thread came lose leading Swan to invent the bayonet mount. He also invented Vitrite, the glassy substance used as an insulator. There was something of a platform war which led to calls for a standard base as misconfigured adaptors were causing houses to burn down. The Edison thread won in the US because the patent had expired and everyone could use it without royalty. It is also a neat rebuttal to the claim that network effects do not exist - as Margolis and co claimed in their laughable tract. If the issue were decided on technical grounds alone the US and Europe would have chosen the same base years ago. The US has not moved to the superior Swan mount because the short term switching costs outweigh the long term advantages. Change is only possible when a technology disruption occurs that negates the advantage of the legacy base. In the case of lightbulbs it is compact flourescents and LED bulbs, in the case of keyboards it would probably take really good handwriting recognition. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Andrew G. Malis Sent: Tue 10/28/2008 9:53 AM To: TS Glassey Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; IETF Discussion; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP. Todd, I see your point about the cost of producing standards. However, having been both on the vendor and service provider sides of the street, I can tell you that most (all?) service providers generally require their vendors to implement standards so that their products are interoperable and meet particular requirements - in an RFP, it's much easier to put in a list of RFCs, ITU-T recommendations, etc., rather than have to list every individual requirement. As a result, vendors don't generally specifically track their standards participation costs - it's just a part of the cost of doing business in a particular market. It all goes back to the light bulb as a great example of standards setting - back before there was a standard base for bulbs, I'm sure every light bulb manufacturer had a vested interest in their pre-standard bases and sockets - whether it screwed left or right or used push-in pins, the size of the base, etc., and sent people to the meetings to represent their interests when that particular standard was being set. It was just a necessary cost of being in the light bulb business at that particular time. Cheers, Andy On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 8:54 PM, TS Glassey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "TS Glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "IETF Discussion" > ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 2:53 PM > Subject: Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP. > > >> Todd, >> >> I generally agree with Tim that it would be difficult to put a value >> on any IETF submission without an actual transfer of assets of some >> sort to set a price. > > The costs of replicating the works - say from a tech writer skilled in an > area is a reasonable place to start. Take the hourly rate and then multiply > that times the number of hours involved and the number of people. > > I suggested that the unbundling of the R&D costs was appropriate since all > the IETF publishes is a set of document-standards per se. > >> >> However, in general, if a company feels that there is IPR value in >> technology they are going to include in a submission (and this really >> deals with ANY kind of standards submission, not just to the IETF), > > How do you figure they 'deal' with how much it costs to send people to the > IETF several times a year. Also to cover the costs of their local > participation. > >> they will most probably submit a patent application prior to the >> standards submission. So the existence of a patent declaration >> accompanying the submission at least provides a clue that the >> submitting company feels that there is some value there (else they >> wouldn't have bothered with the patent application). > > Only if there is a real program inside the Sponsor to accomplish that. This > is one of the issues in the IETF. There are many who are really enamored > with the idea that the IETF is a fraternal benevolent society rather than a > Intellectual Proeperty War Chest disguised cleverly as an International > Networking SDO. > >> >> However, a value generally can't be set until the company actually >> starts to issue patent licenses. The value could be as little as zero >> if no other companies feel compelled to license the technology. >> >> As always, the "value of the workproduct", as you put it, is set by the >> market. > > But the costs of c
Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.
Todd, I see your point about the cost of producing standards. However, having been both on the vendor and service provider sides of the street, I can tell you that most (all?) service providers generally require their vendors to implement standards so that their products are interoperable and meet particular requirements - in an RFP, it's much easier to put in a list of RFCs, ITU-T recommendations, etc., rather than have to list every individual requirement. As a result, vendors don't generally specifically track their standards participation costs - it's just a part of the cost of doing business in a particular market. It all goes back to the light bulb as a great example of standards setting - back before there was a standard base for bulbs, I'm sure every light bulb manufacturer had a vested interest in their pre-standard bases and sockets - whether it screwed left or right or used push-in pins, the size of the base, etc., and sent people to the meetings to represent their interests when that particular standard was being set. It was just a necessary cost of being in the light bulb business at that particular time. Cheers, Andy On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 8:54 PM, TS Glassey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "TS Glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "IETF Discussion" > ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 2:53 PM > Subject: Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP. > > >> Todd, >> >> I generally agree with Tim that it would be difficult to put a value >> on any IETF submission without an actual transfer of assets of some >> sort to set a price. > > The costs of replicating the works - say from a tech writer skilled in an > area is a reasonable place to start. Take the hourly rate and then multiply > that times the number of hours involved and the number of people. > > I suggested that the unbundling of the R&D costs was appropriate since all > the IETF publishes is a set of document-standards per se. > >> >> However, in general, if a company feels that there is IPR value in >> technology they are going to include in a submission (and this really >> deals with ANY kind of standards submission, not just to the IETF), > > How do you figure they 'deal' with how much it costs to send people to the > IETF several times a year. Also to cover the costs of their local > participation. > >> they will most probably submit a patent application prior to the >> standards submission. So the existence of a patent declaration >> accompanying the submission at least provides a clue that the >> submitting company feels that there is some value there (else they >> wouldn't have bothered with the patent application). > > Only if there is a real program inside the Sponsor to accomplish that. This > is one of the issues in the IETF. There are many who are really enamored > with the idea that the IETF is a fraternal benevolent society rather than a > Intellectual Proeperty War Chest disguised cleverly as an International > Networking SDO. > >> >> However, a value generally can't be set until the company actually >> starts to issue patent licenses. The value could be as little as zero >> if no other companies feel compelled to license the technology. >> >> As always, the "value of the workproduct", as you put it, is set by the >> market. > > But the costs of creating it are not. That was the point. The baseline is > the costs of replacing the written work. > >> >> Cheers, >> Andy >> >> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 8:27 AM, TS Glassey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: Since there is now a specific value estimated by the LINUX community at 1.4B for the kernel itself >>> >>> Hey, I've done an analysis and found that my toenail clippings are >>> worth $3.8762 billion. That kernel-valuation exercise is the silliest >>> kind of science fiction. Let me let you in on a little secret: >>> Everything in the world has a value, and that value is exactly what >>> people are prepared to pay for it. No more, no less. >>> >>> On payment of a generous consulting fee, I would be delighted to >>> "estimate a specific value" for any given RFC or even I-D. I'll even >>> issue gold-framed certificates you can mount on the wall. -Tim >>> , the IETF can no longer hide its head in the sand claiming that its workproduct has no specific value. This also means that ANY AND ALL contributions to the IETF no matter when they happened now need to be formally acknowledged for their financial value at the time of their contribution. This is not an OPTION. Todd Glassey ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >>> ___ >>> Ietf mailing list >>> Ietf@ietf.
