Re: How we got here, RE: References to Redphone's patent
PHB == Hallam-Baker, Phillip pba...@verisign.com writes: PHB The proposal that I made then was that when a working group is PHB started, it specify the IPR criteria under which it is PHB chartered. In some cases it makes perfect sense to charter a PHB group that will be using encumbered technology. In other cases PHB the entire purpose of the group requires that any technology be PHB open and unencumbered. I didn't know you had proposed this. It's brilliant. It means that we have decided things up-front. +1 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
How we got here, RE: References to Redphone's patent
There is certainly something wrong, but the source is not necessarily the IETF. The USPTO seems to be a bigger source of the problem here. There are many problems with the current approach of leaving patent policy to groups, not least the fact that case by case negotiation on a per-working group basis is the least likely to achieve what IETF participants want. As we saw in the case of MASS, IPR holders are unlikely to make concessions in one working group unless they can expect reciprocity and that other IPR holders will be held to the same standards in other working groups. At this point we do in fact understand how to grant a right to use a patent in an open source implementation in a manner that protects the interest of the IPR holder in enforcing reciprocal rights in the standard. But at the time we did not. The concept of a cure clause only came later. There were many problems with the IETF patent process. Not least the fact that many of the participants had no idea what they were talking about. As far as I know, I was the only person to submit a proposal to that group that had a lawyer as a co-author. But that did not stop certain persons who are not lawyers and have never worked in a practices group as I have dismissing my position as being uninformed in their view. I strongly suspect that one of the reasons for the current state of the IETF IPR policy is that the only people who get sufficiently interested in it to actually attend meetings tend to be open source ideologues, representatives of large IPR holders and private consultants offering expert testimony in patent disputes. 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. I also proposed that rather than attempting to create yet another patent policy, that the IETF simply outsource the approach. In OASIS a working group specifies the IPR policy at the start and may choose either an open or a proprietary one. In W3C all groups are required to have an open policy. What that means in practice is that it is possible to have a specification that has optional extensions that are encumbered or purportedly encumbered. But it must be possible to implement the spec without using the encumbered options. Both policies are in theory vulnerable to the type of denial of standard by bogus assertion of IPR rights attack described. But in practice so are implementations. -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of Lawrence Rosen Sent: Fri 2/13/2009 11:18 AM To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: References to Redphone's patent Lots of the recent emails on this list refer to Redphone's patent but there is no such thing. As anyone who has ever worked with real patents knows, there is a great difference between a patent application and a patent. Whatever claims are written in patent applications are merely wishes and hopes, placeholders for negotiated language after a detailed examination of the application. Until the PTO actually issues a patent, nothing is fixed. And even then, newly-found prior art and other issues can defeat an issued patent. Why are we all so afraid of Redphone? Who gives a damn what patent claims they hope to get? There's something wrong with the IETF process if spurious and self-serving assertions that a patent application has been filed can serve to hold up progress on important technology. I wish you'd ask real patent attorneys to advise the community on this rather than react with speculation and a generalized fear of patents. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243 Skype: LawrenceRosen ___ 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
Re: How we got here, RE: References to Redphone's patent
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
RE: How we got here, RE: References to Redphone's patent
In my view major technical options should be decided before you start. This is a standards process, not an invention process. I do not design protocols in committee, never have, never will. That type of work was possible when there were 40 people coming to IETF meetings and the problem was coordinating independent research projects. It is not a sensible use of people's time to do the type of unconstrained investigation you suggest with more than five people in the room. Understanding the cost of the materials you intend to use is a key part of being an engineer. I like to work from price on the page catalogs. If a supplier wants to play 'guess my price' then I look to do the job another way. What you suggest increases the leverage of patent trolls. The more working group effort is sunk into the idea that they claim proprietary ownership of, the more leverage they have. Moreover nobody can implement until the IPR issues are fully understood. -Original Message- From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] Sent: Fri 2/13/2009 6:40 PM To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: How we got here, RE: References to Redphone's patent 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
Re: How we got here, RE: References to Redphone's patent
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
