Subject: [hrpc] Patents in draft-tenoever-hrpc-research-05

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2016 21:38:30 +0200

Section 5.3.2.1.7 says:

> Are you aware of any patents that would prevent your standard from
> being fully implemented?

First, this is already covered in length in other IETF documents (RFC
3979, RFC 6701, etc) note wells and things like that. And it is well
implemented by the tools we use, such as the datatracker. IMHO, we
could simply drop this sentence: the average RFC author is already
well aware there are issus with patents.

If we insist on keeping it, I would disagree with it because it seems
to imply we should not standardize patented technologies. If so, we
would standardize nothing: almost every sensible algorithm is
patented. Most (all?) software patents are futile and groundless (not
to mention the fact they are valid only in some countries). If we take
them at face value, we would tie our hands.

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 17:13:56 +1200

Hi Stephane,

First of all, thanks a lot for your extensive review! It was really
helpful. I agreed with all point, except for this one, so let's discuss:

> well aware there are issus with patents.

True, but also other issues that are documented have been discussed in
the draft. Patents can have an impact on human rights, so why not
mentioned them?

> them at face value, we would tie our hands.

The question does not say one should not implement because of patents
but asks whether the patent 'would prevent your standard from being
fully implemented'. So it asks whether the limits the use (which is not
necessarily the case).

I've added a reference to RFC3979 and EFC6701, hope that helps.

Happy to discuss and thanks again for your review!

Best,

Niels

> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc
>

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 03:21:17 -0400

> fully implemented'. So it asks whether the limits the use (which is not

I think the question goes sort of to the heart of who we think the
audience is.  If the goal is for individuals to consider these
considerations (which is I think formally what the document says) then
I don't (speaking personally) have a concern about this question.

If the practical goal, however, is actually to influence the way the
IETF or WGs or something make decisions about these matters, then I
think Stephane's point is that IPR generally is an issue the IETF has
wrestled with, and it has come out on the side of not taking a
position on these matters.  The question above militates against
taking that non-position, and that might be reason to worry a little
about this discussion.

Best regards,

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 09:46:44 +0200

Hi Andrew,

> I don't (speaking personally) have a concern about this question.

This is exactly what it aims to do.

> taking that non-position, and that might be reason to worry a little

Would you have a language suggestion which would help people interpret
this question? I thought the references to RFC3979 RFC6701 would help
reiterate the former reading.

Best,

Niels

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 21:55:46 +0200

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 05:13:56PM +1200,
 Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 95 lines which said:

> Patents can have an impact on human rights, so why not mentioned
> them?

Another issue with the current wording is that it seems to say that it
is up to the RFC / protocol author to check / inquire on possible
patents, a huge task. (And it is very different from IETF policy,
which requires no such effort.)

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 09:42:05 +0200

> which requires no such effort.)

The text reads:

   Are you aware of any patents that would prevent your standard
   from being fully implemented [RFC3979] [RFC6701]?

Is does not say: you MUST check all potential patents on the technology
used to implement your protocol.

So I don't share your concerns and I do not think a necessary check /
inquiry is invoked by this guideline question.

Best,

Niels