RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
Brian, I agree that nobody can know in advance if they will have IPR issues at the end. What I am arguing for is that the set of possible end points is known in advance. From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 19/10/2007 4:34 PM To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip Cc: Simon Josefsson; Tim Polk; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns] Phill, > If folk can't get their act together when a WG starts then why should we > expect them to be able to do so at the end when we are trying to close the > work? Because of the difference between known unknowns and unknown unknowns. At the beginning, you're asking an entirely hypothetical question about potential patents on undesigned technology. At the end, you're asking a precise question about applied-for or granted patents on specific technology. There's a world of difference, especially since the IETF only requires disclosure of patents reasonably and personally known to the individual contributor. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
The large organizations do not seem to have any problem participating in OASIS where this is the rule. Admittedly there does seem to be an issue in W3C with one company but that seems to be due to internal politics. The only obligation that arises out of the OASIS system is that if you have IPR that you know to cover implementation of a specification you have to declare it. I know that there are companies with vast stockpiles of IPR that they think they will be unable to sort through. But as with the pearl in the junk room: if you don't know you have it you might was well throw it out anyway. If the lawyers don't know what the IPR portfolio contains and what it applies then how are you going to make money from it? The days when people looked at patents to find out if their invention might infringe and alert the owner are long gone, if the owner can't work out the applicability then why would anyone else? If folk can't get their act together when a WG starts then why should we expect them to be able to do so at the end when we are trying to close the work? From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu 18/10/2007 5:30 PM To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip Cc: Simon Josefsson; Tim Polk; ietf@ietf.org Subject: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns] On 2007-10-19 05:47, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: ... > What I would suggest is that new working groups be required to specify the > governing IPR rules in their charter, these would be either that all IPR must > be offered according to an open grant on W3C terms or that the working group > specifies at the outset that RAND terms are acceptable. Violent disagreement. That would make all kinds of a priori processes kick in for employees of patent-conscious companies, and generally inhibit free discussion of initial ideas. Although it's messier to confront patent issues later in the process, I believe that is much better than constraining participation at the beginning. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
Scott Brim wrote: On 19 Oct 2007 at 10:30 +1300, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote: On 2007-10-19 05:47, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: What I would suggest is that new working groups be required to specify the governing IPR rules in their charter ... Violent disagreement. That would make all kinds of a priori processes kick in for employees of patent-conscious companies, ... +1 Otherwise you get into battles over theory and ideology without any of the information you need to make a decision. +1 -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
Phill, If folk can't get their act together when a WG starts then why should we expect them to be able to do so at the end when we are trying to close the work? Because of the difference between known unknowns and unknown unknowns. At the beginning, you're asking an entirely hypothetical question about potential patents on undesigned technology. At the end, you're asking a precise question about applied-for or granted patents on specific technology. There's a world of difference, especially since the IETF only requires disclosure of patents reasonably and personally known to the individual contributor. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
