At 02:09 PM 5/31/2002 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
So we seem to have only a few work items suggested so far:
>I think the problem is that while there is (very) rough consensus
>IETF-wide that there is a strong cultural bias against patent
>encumberances (*), this bias is not adequately documented
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
> >> (And yes, this would be a case of "the Good Guys file a bull-manure
> >> patent to pre-empt the Evil Guys from filing a bull-manure patent" - but
> >> until the Patent Office gets their act together we're stuck with borked
> >> softwa
--On 31. mai 2002 07:54 -0600 Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>
>> I guess what I was asking was how the IETF would feel about an
>> organization grabbing a patent on an algorithm and using it the same way
>> the GNU crew uses copyright on source code. (Remember - the GNU
>> copyr
In general, this IPR debate seems to be missing several relevant parts of
the discussion.
The discussion seems to be focussed on the case where a company brings
forward a proposal, and simultaneously has or applies for a patent. That
is one interesting case. It does cause problems. It is har
> From: Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
> .. If it takes a lawyer to write (or understand) licensing terms, they're
> probably too complex ..
Something like "the programmer who is his own IP lawyer has a fool for
a client" applies.
In other words, if you need to sign a license, then it ta
On Fri, 31 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2002 08:40:17 +0300, Pekka Savola said:
>
> > A bad thing IETF could do (but not the worst luckily :-) is to give a
> > signal "Ok.. feel free to patent and give RAND licensing.. depending how
> > good it is, we might give it a standar
Bill Strahm wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 May 2002, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>
> >
> > On Thursday, May 30, 2002, at 09:48 , Melinda Shore wrote:
> > > Here's one for starters: there's no guidance on how or whether to
> > > treat differences in licensing terms for competing proposals. It
> > > would be nice
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 11:13:24PM -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:
> To underscore the point that Marshall has been making:
>
> The IETF has a strong preference to use unencumbered technologies. When
> there is a choice between encumbered and unencumbered, the working group
> includes encumbrance i
> I think the most effective thing would be to send a strong signal of some
> kind: "If you patent technologies and give non-RF licenses, _do not expect
> the technology be supported in IETF at all_".
The problem is that there are enough companies out there that don't care.
There are some area
> | And the flip side - we've moved an amazingly SMALL number of documents
> | to Full Standard, and only when we *think* we *fully* understand
> things.
>
> That's the problem. Or it is with the IPR issues. It is determining
> whether
> we can make that final step (widespread deployment
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ...
> The problem is that you can publish the same document, and then some
> sleazeball competitor patents it, because the patent office does such
> a poor job of researching "prior art".
That seems to be based on the false notion that the patent
office checks even it
On Fri, 31 May 2002 07:54:49 MDT, Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> In theory that could happen. It may have happened in practice with
> the Ethernet patent. But what's the point? What is gained by
> winning such a patent from government(s) compared to publishing
> the same document
Date:Fri, 31 May 2002 11:48:24 -0400
From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| How would that work (having 2 full standards for the same exact thing)?
Depends on what the thing is, and how precisely you mean "the same exact
thing".
In some cases it
On Fri, 31 May 2002 22:34:06 +0700, Robert Elz said:
> Yes, that's true - but it would be even easier if the new one were a
> full standard (even if the old one was too).
How would that work (having 2 full standards for the same exact thing)?
msg08440/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Date:Fri, 31 May 2002 09:03:43 -0400
From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| OK.. I'll bite - at what point should a not-yet-full standard expire to
| historic?
Pretty quickly. What the max period at DS should be I'm not sure, but
certainly no
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > In still other words, don't you remember the years of pain
> > Motorola/Codec caused PPP with those two bogus patents?
>
> I guess what I was asking was how the IETF would feel about an organization
> grabbing a patent on an algorithm and using it the same way the GN
On Fri, 31 May 2002 07:12:50 MDT, Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> In still other words, don't you remember the years of pain
> Motorola/Codec caused PPP with those two bogus patents?
I guess what I was asking was how the IETF would feel about an organization
grabbing a patent on an
>> Right. Standards exist so that we can get interoperability; expensive
>> licenses limit interoperability.
>
>No, expensive licenses place an upper bound on the number of
>interoperable implementations.
I believe it comes to the same thing. Interop is not actually the end
goal; it is a tool
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Patents *in and of themselves* are not a Bad Thing. As far as the IETF goes,
> the problem only arises when the patent is used to enforce a restrictive
> licensing policy.
>
>Can anybody think of a reason the IETF should object to patented tech *per se*,
>as opposed to
On Fri, 31 May 2002 16:09:47 +0700, Robert Elz said:
> My suggestion to fix this problem is quite simple
>
> No more last calls before moving protocols to historic,
> except where they're full standards already.
>
> For everything else, going to historic should be automatic. That i
On Fri, 31 May 2002 08:40:17 +0300, Pekka Savola said:
> A bad thing IETF could do (but not the worst luckily :-) is to give a
> signal "Ok.. feel free to patent and give RAND licensing.. depending how
> good it is, we might give it a standards status or we might not". That
> _encourages_ to do
Date:Thu, 30 May 2002 23:13:24 -0500
From:Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| So, what exactly do folks think is a practical kind of change to the
| current IETF policies?
Actually, like many things, I suspect that the underlying p
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Generally this thread seems to be seeking determinacy for a matter that can
> only be made deterministic by a) ignoring IPR encumbrance, or b) rejecting
> all IPR encumbrances. The first is not compatible with IETF culture. The
> latter is not practi
At 11:15 AM 5/30/2002 -0400, Scott Brim wrote:
>and if one solution is 120% better technically than another, but has a
>RAND license associated with it? What if it's 170% better?
And Scott's questions become particularly comfortable if we translate them
into questions about protocol efficiency.
At 12:54 PM 5/30/2002 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:
>- can we identify (and agree) a "top N" problems that need fixing (for
>some small N)?
We have have had IPR-related rules for a long time.
So let me suggest that this one question out of your list is the only one
we should first focus on.
Even
> one that's O(logN) with a non-RF license
>and
> one that's O(NlogN) with an RF license
>
>i probably wouldn't need to think very hard to go with the
>latter. simply because we'll see a lot more community good...
Right. Standards exist so that we can get interoperability; expens
On Thursday, May 30, 2002, at 01:27 , Bill Strahm wrote:
> I don't think the IETF can afford to keep a staff of
> lawyers working on determining the licencing statements of all of the
> standards being churned out.
Interesting, but actually no one suggested that.
I said that I
> Unfortunately, while we can compare proposals based on their complexity,
> maybe even performance or overhead, there is, in reality, usually no way
> to compare the actual licensing costs at the time a decision is made. At
> least as far as I know, none of the non-free licensing statements on
On Thu, 30 May 2002, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>
> On Thursday, May 30, 2002, at 09:48 , Melinda Shore wrote:
> > Here's one for starters: there's no guidance on how or whether to
> > treat differences in licensing terms for competing proposals. It
> > would be nice to be able to say that all other thi
On Thu, May 30, 2002 08:59:50AM -0700, Marshall Rose wrote:
> > > My druthers would be to have an IETF policy explicitly saying
> > > that the first choice is to use unencumbered technology if it
> > > can be made to work, second choice is encumbered but
> > > royalty-free technology, and
>> and if one solution is 120% better technically than another, but
>> has a RAND license associated with it? What if it's 170% better?
>
>
Marshall Rose wrote:
> working groups make trade-offs all the time between simplicity,
> functionality, and so on. licensing is another cost. given t
>Thus, this mechanism offers almost no remedy or protection.
I didn't say it was the optimal policy. :-) Someone implied that the IETF
didn't have an IPR policy, and I pointed to it.
/\
|John Stracke|Principal Engineer
> RFC-2026, section 4.1.2 ("Draft Standard"):
>
> If patented or otherwise controlled technology is required for
> implementation, the separate implementations must also have resulted
> from separate exercise of the licensing process.
The problem is that very few standards make it to Draft. A
> From: Scott Brim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2002 10:59:27AM -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> > My druthers would be to have an IETF policy explicitly saying
> > that the first choice is to use unencumbered technology if it
> > can be made to work, second choice is enc
>> ... we should prefer technology which will be available
>> royalty-free, but that's not current policy
>
>Whose policy?
RFC-2026, section 4.1.2 ("Draft Standard"):
If patented or otherwise controlled technology is required for
implementation, the separate implementations must also have resu
> > My druthers would be to have an IETF policy explicitly saying
> > that the first choice is to use unencumbered technology if it
> > can be made to work, second choice is encumbered but
> > royalty-free technology, and last choice is "fair and reasonable
> > licence terms" (
> ... we should prefer technology which will be available
> royalty-free, but that's not current policy
Whose policy?
Some WGs have a policy (or are actually chartered) to develop deployable
protocols. Where a legal issue would make a protocol non-deployable, we have to
look elsewhere. (Of
On Thu, May 30, 2002 10:59:27AM -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> My druthers would be to have an IETF policy explicitly saying
> that the first choice is to use unencumbered technology if it
> can be made to work, second choice is encumbered but
> royalty-free technology, and la
On Thursday, May 30, 2002, at 09:48 , Melinda Shore wrote:
> Here's one for starters: there's no guidance on how or whether to
> treat differences in licensing terms for competing proposals. It
> would be nice to be able to say that all other things being more-or-
> less equal we should prefer t
At 08:12 PM 5/29/02 -0500, Pete Resnick wrote:
>And overall I'm pretty darn sick and tired of wasting my time in WG/BOF sessions
>where all I get is a series of undiscussed presentations that could have been done in
>I-Ds which I could have read before the meeting.
So don't go to the session.
At 02:58 PM 5/29/02 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 09:10 PM 5/29/2002 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:
>>At 08:53 AM 5/29/02 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>> Certainly we do not have to worry about whether there is
>>> sufficient community interest in IPR. What we do not have a good sense
>>> o
On Wed, 29 May 2002 15:35:26 PDT, Randy Bush said:
> sure is a lot of interest in this subject from diverse folk. maybe
> we should hold a wg/bof meeting on friday in yokohama to discuss it.
Just remember to let us non-travellers know what happened. ;)
--
Valdis
On 5/29/02 at 3:35 PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
>sure is a lot of interest in this subject from diverse folk. maybe
>we should hold a wg/bof meeting on friday in yokohama to discuss it.
Oooo.that's a good idea. While we're on topics which generate "a
lot of interest from diverse folk", let
At 06:34 PM 5/29/2002 -0400, Scott Brim wrote:
>arguments won't do it. There are only two ways to change IETF culture:
>(1) have people of influence issue a document of some sort and promote
>it for 3 years, or (2) have a plenary meeting and come up with a good
>sound bite to summarize a solution
On Wed, May 29, 2002 02:58:59PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> It is not clear that an entire week of discussion would be fruitful
> for that sort of deep and broad requirement for substantial process
> and concept invention, nevermind a couple of hours at the end of a
> long work-week, with little
sure is a lot of interest in this subject from diverse folk. maybe
we should hold a wg/bof meeting on friday in yokohama to discuss it.
randy
On Wed, May 29, 2002 09:10:20PM +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:
> How do we best approach the design of Internet technologies so that
> IPR-related obstructions to their deployment will be minimized?
That assumes IPR-related goals are obstructions. For me they're a pain
but I've been burned so I hav
At 09:10 PM 5/29/2002 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:
>At 08:53 AM 5/29/02 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> Certainly we do not have to worry about whether there is
>> sufficient community interest in IPR. What we do not have a good sense
>> of, perhaps, is what problems need to be resolved.
>
48 matches
Mail list logo
