Subject: RE: Rechartering to focus on problem

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:18:09 -0500

Scott's response makes sense.  I suspect that means that today, the WGs should assume that RAND means the worst case (i.e., egregious licensing terms), unless they have reason to believe otherwise (such as a particular company's past patent licensing practice).  Is it feasible to ask/require patent disclosers to disclose more detail about their licensing terms, such as potential royalty rates or ranges?  On one hand, that additional detail would be helpful for the WGs.  On the other hand, I suspect that some patent holders would resist making that level of disclosure on a regular basis.  In any case, it's probably a substantive-enough change to existing requirements that it would come under any proposed rechartering.

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott W Brim [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:33 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Rechartering to focus on problem

On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 01:24:34PM -0500, Contreras, Jorge allegedly wrote:
> Reasonable people might think
> this is a problem.  However, if so, the problem is not a lack of
> agreement among experts as to the meaning of RAND.  That question
> would not need to be tackled by IETF unless it decides to adopt a RAND
> IPR policy.

Jorge, I disagree.  In working groups a major problem is that we have no
idea what a particular patent disclosure actually discloses.  The most
egregious issue is "RAND" or its equivalent, which everyone tosses in,
and the meaning of which can vary all over the map, from free and
unrestricted to 5% of revenue and serious restrictions.  This whole
spectrum is considered "reasonable".  
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 01:03:53 +0100

Jorge, I can't see that. Why should WGs assume that reasonable equals 
egregious?

I think the contributors to a typical IETF WG, including myself, aren't
qualified to judge what "reasonable" means, and aren't in the right
department of their employer to prepare a disclosure of licensing
conditions. Also, I'm not sure that the IETF should be in the business
of posting licensing conditions on its own web site. You might advise
us what the liability implications of that might be.

    Brian