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
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
