Subject: RE: Withdrawal when patent claims are made (was:RE: I-D ACTION:dr aft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-02.txt)

From: "Ling, Hung C (Hung)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:56:03 -0500

To quote a paragraph from the draft I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-02.txt);

Section 2:  
It will always be better for the Internet to develop standards based
   on technology which can be used without concern about selective or
   costly licensing.  However, increasingly, choosing a technology which
   is not protected by IPR over an alternative that is may produce a
   weaker Internet.  Sometimes there simply isn't any technology in an
   area that is not IPR-protected. It is not always the wrong choice to
   select IPR-protected technology, if the choice is made knowingly,
   after considering the alternatives and taking the IPR issues into
   account.

Therefore I support Bob Wayman's view point.

Hung Ling

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Wyman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 10:16 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Withdrawal when patent claims are made (was:RE: I-D
ACTION:draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-02.txt (another plea for 30 month
preference))

Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> But once a real patent is identified, and it is 
> determined by the best minds in the Internet 
> standards business that the patent claims
> *probably* can't be avoided, it should be our 
> policy not to pay ransom.
	This business about "ransom" is, I believe, completely
inappropriate for a forum such as this. It is not the purpose or charter
of either the IETF or this WG to attack or insult either the patent
system or those who hold patents. Rather, the IETF exists to develop the
best standards possible given the current environment -- technical,
political or legal. This working group is currently chartered to
document current IETF practice -- not serve as a forum for anti-IPR
rabble-rousing.

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:13:23 +0200 (EET)

On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Ling, Hung C (Hung) wrote:
> To quote a paragraph from the draft I-D
> ACTION:draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-02.txt);
>
> Section 2:  

Do you find similar text in RFC2026?

Is this a clarification or a change?  Remember, this wg is not chartered
for change at the moment.

/me runs

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:21:46 -0500 (EST)

> Do you find similar text in RFC2026?

there is in draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-02.txt

> Is this a clarification or a change? 

it is reflecting what the IETF has been doing for quite a while

Scott

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:39:09 +0200 (EET)

> there is in draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-02.txt

Right.

> it is reflecting what the IETF has been doing for quite a while

Is this in line with the charter saying:

If there consensus of the working group for a different IPR policy than 
the one described in RFC 2026, the working group will seek to amend its 
                     ^^^^^^^^
charter to make it clear that it is changing the status quo.

Note RFC 2026, not draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-02.txt.

It cuts both ways.

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:48:01 -0500 (EST)

r
> Is this in line with the charter saying:

...

it is in line with the charter saying

   The working group will attempt to work in three phases:
   1. Document existing IPR practice in the IETF

this documents existing IPR practice in the IETF

Scott

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:20:21 -0500

In message <[email-masked]>, Scott Bradner writ
>this documents existing IPR practice in the IETF

That's correct.  As other parts of the charter note, one of the reasons 
for updating 2026 is that there are other source of policy as well, and 
we want to bring them together in one place.

Pekka, the language you cite is aimed at one crucial point: should we 
switch to some manner of RF policy, rather than the current RAND?

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)

---

From: Russell Nelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:42:02 -0500

> switch to some manner of RF policy, rather than the current RAND?

From reading the drafts, the only place that I can see where RAND is
made explicit is in the action taken by the AD when IPR is found.  The
current policy is said to be that RAND terms are requested.  And yet
from what everybody tells me (without exception), the policy is first
to seek RF terms.  Keith Moore has explicitly said that he interprets
the Reasonable in RAND as requiring royalty-free licensing.

Perhaps the only change needed is to add a note saying that the IETF
believes that a requirement for the payment of royalties on a license
is not reasonable.

-- 
-russ nelson   angry-economist.russnelson.com   | "What Problem Are You Trying
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | To Solve?" is a service mark
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | of Crynwr Software.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | 
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:46:12 +0200 (EET)

> switch to some manner of RF policy, rather than the current RAND?

Yes, I do believe that RF policy is by far superior (RAND conflicting with
the benefit of Internet community and the public at large), but that's
probably beside the point now.

My problem with statements like:

is that they encourage the IPR-protected, and consequently the RAND model,
while that should be avoided at all costs.  For example, if there really
is no useful technology without IPR claims (or without actually reasonable
licensing model), it might be best just to not work on the issue *at all*.

The general policy of RFC2026 is:

   In all matters of intellectual property rights and procedures, the
   intention is to benefit the Internet community and the public at
   large, while respecting the legitimate rights of others.

*however* there is no policy to create standards which include "rights of
others" if that conflicts with the benefit of the Internet community and
the public at large, nor having to accept some licensing conditions if
they conflict with the benefit of the Internet community and the public at
large; moreover, being included in internet standards (or being paid for
it) is not a right for for IPR holders/claimants.

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:20:54 -0500

On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 07:46:12PM +0200, Pekka Savola allegedly wrote:
> Yes, I do believe that RF policy is by far superior (RAND conflicting
> with the benefit of Internet community and the public at large), but
> that's probably beside the point now.
> 
>    It will always be better for the Internet to develop standards
>    based on technology which can be used without concern about
>    selective or costly licensing.  However, increasingly, choosing a
>    technology which is not protected by IPR over an alternative that
>    is may produce a weaker Internet.  Sometimes there simply isn't any
>    technology in an area that is not IPR-protected. It is not always
>    the wrong choice to select IPR-protected technology, if the choice
>    is made knowingly, after considering the alternatives and taking
>    the IPR issues into account.
> 
> is that they encourage the IPR-protected, and consequently the RAND
> model, while that should be avoided at all costs.  For example, if
> there really is no useful technology without IPR claims (or without
> actually reasonable licensing model), it might be best just to not
> work on the issue *at all*.

This is how we operate today.  We prefer less encumbrance but we adopt
encumbered technology all the time.  One of the motivations for this
draft was the extreme variation in "common knowledge" found in working
groups.  In one, for example, they were thinking of using something a
different working group had standardized on.  Someone said "but that's
patented", and someone else said "nonsense, the IESG would never accept
something as a standard if it was patented".  In other groups they never
consider IPR, they say it's out of their scope, they're just
technologists.  We wanted to get some consistent guidelines.  This
paragraph may feel like encouragement to you, but to many it's just
admitting the truth.  

> *however* there is no policy to create standards which include "rights
> of others" if that conflicts with the benefit of the Internet
> community and the public at large, nor having to accept some licensing
> conditions if they conflict with the benefit of the Internet community
> and the public at large; moreover, being included in internet
> standards (or being paid for it) is not a right for for IPR
> holders/claimants.

True.  If licensing conditions conflict with the benefit of the Internet
community, I believe we wouldn't adopt that technology.  However, there
are times when the perceived benefits outweigh the costs.  The goal of
the draft is to help WGs make these decisions.  

I think trying to avoid patents completely is a waste of time.  Instead,
people should develop the skills to evaluate costs & benefits.

Thanks...Scott

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:27:53 -0500

>believes that a requirement for the payment of royalties on a license

That would be a major change to current policy...

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:22:50 +0200 (EET)

On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Scott W Brim wrote:
> groups.  

My worry is that this and other clarifications for 2026 is that I believe 
that the use of IPR has increased; it should be clearly observable.

In 1990, things were quite a bit different (of course, not completely
IPR-free either); in 1995-6 when RFC2026 was prepared, something else;  
now, the policy would seem to have gone, at the face of more IPR claims,
towards giving up and accepting encumbered technologies easier.

Are the circumstances and the practise of RFC2026 same as in 1996 and now
in 2003?  Or has the policy we are documenting actually shifted slightly
during the last 2-3 years?  There are three kinds of policy we could
document: 1) as it should be based on RFC2026 etc., 2) how it has evolved
in the face of no clarity after that, or 3) how we would like it to be.  
We're doing something like 2) it seems, but we should also consider the
connection between 1) and 2).  3) seems out of the charter at the moment.

This is my worry.

And even if the use of encumbered technology might be required in some, 
rare, restricted cases after careful deliberations -- I'd like to make it 
very clear that such decisions should not be taken lightly.

I see a very present danger of a loopback system here: if IETF starts
accepting more standards with IPR or limited licensing, you can be 110%
sure almost all the organizations will start trying to claim all kinds of
IPR because they see a potential for making money.  Getting into this kind
of situation (where we might already be in) would be very unfortunate.. 
and getting out of very challenging.

> In one, for example, they were thinking of using something a
> technologists.  We wanted to get some consistent guidelines.  

Yes, I applaud the effort -- I think writing guidelines is very useful.
I just want to be very sure that they're giving proper guidance, not 
giving too much weight on the possibilities that should be avoided.

> people should develop the skills to evaluate costs & benefits.

In today's world and economy, I have to agree :-( -- companies have to
patent stuff, if not else, but to protect themselves from others doing the
same.  But we still have licensing terms to play with...