Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-02.txt (another plea for 30 month preference)

From: Powers Chuck-rxcp20 <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:01:40 -0700

See below

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Nelson [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 10:16 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-02.txt (another
> plea for 30 month preference)
> 
> 
> Powers Chuck-rxcp20 writes:
>  > The use of the term "legal" in this discussion is rather
>  > deceiving. You could ask the question the other way around: "is it
>  > _illegal_ to implement this standard?" and the likely answer would
>  > still be 'no'.
> 
> Is it illegal to drive a car without a license?  Yes.  Is it illegal
> to implement a standard containing patented ideas without a license?
> Yes.  The whole point behind having a standard is to get everyone on
> the same page.  You can't do that if some people can't get a license
> for the ideas in the standard.

This is making a desperate attempt to compare apples and oranges. To compare apples to apples, you need to ask: "is it illegal to drive a car?", and the obvious answer is "no". Do you need to get a license to drive a car? Yes. Can you choose not to get a license and drive anyway? Sure. This doesn't make driving the car illegal, it only makes you a lawbreaker for driving without a license. Same applies in this case. Just because you choose to not obtain the necessary licensing doesn't mean the standard is not legal, it just means you have chosen not to obtain a license.

> 
> That's why the IETF has a policy of standardizing on technology which
> does not need to be licensed.  Failing that, the IETF seeks a license
> which allows everyone to get on the same page.  Everyone is agreed
> that that is the correct course of action.  The disagreement comes
> when the ideas cannot be licensed under those terms, or when ideas
> that were thought to be obvious turn out to have been much more subtle
> (and patented) than anyone could have imagined.  What do you do then?
> Kick people out of the IETF?  Kick the patent out of the standard?
> Withdraw the standard?  Go for a patent buy-out (but that just
> encourages the bastards)?  Document the existance of the patent and
> move on?  None of these are obvious choices, and they deserve to be
> discussed.  Not here, now, until after re-chartering (for which I'm
> 100% in favor of).

And the IETF should continue working under this policy, which is reasonable and flexible enough to deal with situations which come up. Rather than trying to change the IPR policy (since the IETF appropriately cannot and will not decide whether a patent is valid or not, nor whether terms are "fair", anyway) it makes more sense to leave it up to the market to decide whether a standard becomes accepted. Rather than trying to limit creativity and innovation by forcing people to give up the fruits of their R&D investments and conform to a point of view that only some share, we should let the market decide whether a standard should be adopted, and whether any particular terms required to implement it are fair. If in fact the majority of the developer and user communities decide they will not implement a standard, then it will go away on its own. If the technology is compelling and the cost reasonable to the market, then it will be adopted, even if some licensing is required. 

> 
>  > It just requires you to give something back in return to someone
>  > else who innovated.
> 
> If that's actually what happened, you would see much less resistance
> to the patent system in general, and software patents in particular.
> Of course, any person having ordinary skill in the art can see that
> obvious ideas are being patented.  For example, TechSearch's supposed
> patent on putting HTML files on CD-ROMs.  It just doesn't pass the
> "well, duh" test.

While I certainly agree that some patents which have been issued are just silly, there are a whole lot of them which have been issued which are not, and which are the fruits of investment and labor, and deserve to be respected. Improving the patent system (something the IETF is not likely to address) would be good, but I suspect that as long as one crappy patent gets through the system, there would still be people holding that up as a reason for forcing RF licensing - to some, it isn't really about bad patents, it is about patents in general, and changing the IETF IPR policy to suit that constituency would be a mistake. I think the "bad patent" argument is just a red herring.

chuck

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

---

From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:50:32 -0800

Chuck Powers wrote:
> And the IETF should continue working under this policy, which 
> is reasonable and flexible enough to deal with situations 
> which come up. Rather than trying to change the IPR policy 
> (since the IETF appropriately cannot and will not decide 
> whether a patent is valid or not, nor whether terms are 
> "fair", anyway) it makes more sense to leave it up to the 
> market to decide whether a standard becomes accepted. Rather 
> than trying to limit creativity and innovation by forcing 
> people to give up the fruits of their R&D investments and 
> conform to a point of view that only some share, we should 
> let the market decide whether a standard should be adopted, 
> and whether any particular terms required to implement it are 
> fair. If in fact the majority of the developer and user 
> communities decide they will not implement a standard, then 
> it will go away on its own. If the technology is compelling 
> and the cost reasonable to the market, then it will be 
> adopted, even if some licensing is required. 

Chuck,

I remember you making this exact argument at the W3C patent policy
committee, and I will defend to the death your right to say it.  But I
respectfully disagree with it.

IETF is not yet at the stage where this argument is being joined.  You,
admirably representing the official position of your company (as you did
at W3C), and I, perhaps not as successfully representing the official
position of Open Source Initiative, should argue this in front of the
IETF folks that ultimately will decide.  Gloves off, laser pointers at
the ready, no illusions that we're individuals expressing only our own
independent views.  

The IETF IPR WG is currently -- I've often been told -- just reviewing
the current document.  

Soon, I hope, the issues you and I have been debating for over two years
now will be addressed by IETF, and by all the companies and consumers
that contribute to and use its standards, until it is resolved.  As you
well know, the issues cannot be avoided.  It's too late for that.
Lawyers are already involved!  :-)

/Larry Rosen

---

From: Russell Nelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:31:55 -0500

[ last paragraph is on topic.  The rest is just food for an
out-of-control line eater.  -russ ]

Powers Chuck-rxcp20 writes:
 > Just because you choose to not obtain the necessary licensing
 > doesn't mean the standard is not legal, it just means you have
 > chosen not to obtain a license.

I'm just more confused.  Are you advising me to implement patented
standards without a license?  Is it legal to implement a standard even
if it contains patented technology?

 > we should let the market decide whether a standard should be
 > adopted,

That's an argument for not standardizing at all!

 > If the technology is compelling and the cost reasonable to the
 > market, then it will be adopted, even if some licensing is
 > required.

I get the impression that you haven't heard a word any of us have
said.  Some implementors do not have a revenue stream to pay the most
reasonable non-zero licensing cost.

 > While I certainly agree that some patents which have been issued
 > are just silly, there are a whole lot of them which have been
 > issued which are not,

I'm not arguing "silly".  I'm arguing "obvious".  I'm arguing "prior
art".  We have the patent system that we had because someone in
England patented the crank.  Unfortunately, we now have that English
patent system again, except that every day another crank patents
something.

 > I suspect that as long as one crappy patent gets through the system,

Oh, c'mon, Chuck, you don't think there's just one crappy patent, do
you?  In any case, it's not just one patent, or even a dozen, or even
hundreds, that's the problem from the IETF's point of view.  The
problem is a unique US one.  Somebody can file a patent on work that
was published a year ago.  Somebody can file a patent on work with
prior art.  Somebody can file a patent on something that can't
possibly work, and then amend it.  Somebody can file a patent on
something completely obvious (e.g. the xor cursor).  Somebody can file
a patent without supplying all the information needed to implement it,
which is purely against the public policy reason for allowing a
monopoly on an idea.  Somebody can file a patent on somebody else's
work.  Somebody can file a patent on work being performed by an IETF
working group, not participate in the group, not be subject to
disclosure requirements, and then claim rights later.

By some of these actions, the IETF is being targetted.  By most of
them, the IETF's work is merely collateral damage.  The IETF could
avoid some of these problems by specifically stating that it will
withdraw standards which have patent claims made against them.
Contrast this against the existing practice which (if I read the
drafts correctly and they ARE correct :) is to document the existance
of patent claims.  What is the actual effect of these two actions?  In
both cases, the ideas haven't gone away.  The standard is still
written on paper, and people can still implement it.  The existance of
patents hasn't gone away, and people will know that the standard has
patent claims.

What makes the difference between the two is that the IETF can be seen
to be living up to its principles: that everyone should be able to
implement a standard without asking someone for permission.

-- 
-russ nelson              http://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: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:04:11 -0500

(apologies in advance to everyone who is trying to document 
current practice, but this particular dead horse deserves a 
decent burial, now, not more kicking)

--On Tuesday, 11 March, 2003 17:31 -0500 Russell Nelson 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> By some of these actions, the IETF is being targetted.  By
> most of them, the IETF's work is merely collateral damage.
> The IETF could avoid some of these problems by specifically
> stating that it will withdraw standards which have patent
> claims made against them. Contrast this against the existing
> practice which (if I read the drafts correctly and they ARE
> correct :) is to document the existance of patent claims.
> What is the actual effect of these two actions?  In both
> cases, the ideas haven't gone away.  The standard is still
> written on paper, and people can still implement it.  The
> existance of patents hasn't gone away, and people will know
> that the standard has patent claims.
>
> What makes the difference between the two is that the IETF can
> be seen to be living up to its principles: that everyone
> should be able to implement a standard without asking someone
> for permission.

Russell,

Regardless of what else might be done here, I believe that the 
notion of withdrawing a standard if a patent claim is made is a 
non-starter.  The short version of the reason has been said 
before -- "denial of service attack" -- but that obviously 
didn't take.

So, let's say IETF adopts such a rule.  Suppose I'm feeling a 
little hostile to the IETF.  I file, or contemplate filing, a 
patent application that is covers something so obvious and 
obviously bogus that even the US Patent Office will bounce it (I 
am told such things exist). As an extreme example, assume I 
dress up the idea of transmitting information over a 
communications circuit by doing interesting things to electrons 
enough to file on it.   I may not even have to file the turkey 
-- to avoid other problems, our language tends to say things 
like "IPR Claim", not "patent".  Now I send the IETF a 
disclosure letter that says that I've got IPR claims, or even 
proposed patent claims, against everything we have in the 
transport area and everything that depends on it.  So, we are 
going to withdraw everything?  I don't think so.

If you think that example is too extreme, let's try a slightly 
more realistic one.  Suppose I work for a company that is in the 
DWDM business.   Most of the companies in that area have 
reasonably large patent portfolios, with more in the pipe.  So 
we file a notice indicating that we intend to charge a royality 
to anything that runs over a physical layer that infringes any 
of our patents or pending patents.  That is a patent claim 
against virtually every Internet standard, even though we may be 
able to implement things in a way that avoids that vendor's 
patents.  If we permit careful evaluation, we may be able to 
avoid the claim, but that doesn't mean the claim doesn't exist.

As another example, there is a far more destructive attack than 
the sorts of things outlined above.  Suppose I'm a vendor who 
would like the IETF to standardize on a method for which my 
development efforts are well advanced.  Suppose my business 
strategy is to make my money on early entrant momentum rather 
than on IPR claims or licensing, and that I abandoned my 
business ethics on the other side of the boom.  I don't have any 
IPR claims against anything the relevant WG is likely to do, so 
I don't need to disclose anything.  Now I find a stooge and I 
convince him to send in a note claiming submitted patent 
applications (or patent applications being prepared) that cover 
important aspects of all of the approaches and methods the WG is 
considering except mine.  The stooge won't give you any details 
--we've seen discussion on this list to the effect that, were he 
legitimate, he wouldn't be able to do so.  Under current IETF 
procedures, the WG gets to evaluate the situation.  Under any 
"run away as soon as someone makes a claim" model, I win: the 
IETF is either forced to abandon the entire area (which might be 
an ok outcome from my standpoint, since I'm enough ahead to be 
able to claim a de facto standard) or to adopt my preferred 
solution (since it is the only one that appears to be 
unencumbered).

That really isn't very attractive, is it?

     john

---

From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:07:46 -0800

John,

Whatever gave you the impression that all that has to happen is someone
appear at IETF's door and claim patent rights?  Did someone suggest that
IETF should say, "sorry Mr. Patent-Man, we'll withdraw our standard and
go away."  You should assume many people who care will evaluate such
claims to weed out the bogus ones.  Will we always be right?  Probably
not, but we'll have to argue it out in public instead of letting each
implementer or user evaluate the patents and negotiate licenses behind
closed doors.  You suggest that we'll be bombarded with
denial-of-service attacks.  I'd rather face those collectively instead
of individually.

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.
That's one of the policy choices facing IETF and other standards
organizations.

You say that withdrawing standards is a non-starter.  This was very
definitely a starter at W3C, and a finisher too.  Exactly that process
is described in the proposed W3C patent policy.  

/Larry Rosen

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of John C Klensin
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 4:04 PM
> To: Russell Nelson; [email-masked]
> Subject: Withdrawal when patent claims are made (was:RE: I-D 
> ACTION:draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-02.txt (another plea for 
> 30 month preference))
> 
>

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:16:12 -0500

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
	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.
	If the IETF has a policy which causes it to avoid encumbered
technologies, then such policies should be justified not by insulting
those who press valid and legal claims concerning the IP involved,
rather, those policies should be justified by reference to what makes
the "best" standard. Some would argue that a "best" standard is one that
can be widely and freely implemented. That is justification alone. There
is no need to insult those who hold patents or press valid and legal
claims.

<flame>
I will admit that I tend to take statements like those about patent
"ransom" rather personally. As the sole inventor on four patents, I am
insulted whenever anyone suggests that patents are "theft" or tools of
"ransom." As someone who has spent his entire adult life building
software for others, I am insulted whenever Free Software Stallmanites
accuse me of theft or other crimes because of my expecting to be paid
for the good that I have brought society.
</flame>

		bob wyman

---

From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:11:01 -0800

Bob,

Nobody expects you to donate your patents for use in standards.  Use
them to make all the money you want.  Just don't expect me to practice
an "industry standard" if it means I have to pay you for your patents.
If you've got a patent necessary for a standard I'd give you a choice:
License it royalty-free for all users of the standard, or we'll all
forego the benefit of the standard.

The issue isn't patents, it's patents on standards that are not
available, royalty-free, for practice by everyone worldwide!

Damnit, I'm not a "Stallmanite," whatever that's supposed to mean.  So
don't flame on me!  I litigate to enforce patents, and my law partner
(who used to be chief patent counsel for a Fortune-100 company)
prosecutes patents for a living.  We actually support the patent system
and make a good living from attorneys' fees doing so.  I'm an inventor
myself, complete with brass plaque on the wall.  I personally encourage
people and companies to prosecute good patents and to profit from them.

But I don't support people making money off of patents that are
necessary to practice industry standards.

Do you finally understand the difference?

/Larry

> From: Bob Wyman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 7:16 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:
> 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.
> 	If the IETF has a policy which causes it to avoid 
> encumbered technologies, then such policies should be 
> justified not by insulting those who press valid and legal 
> claims concerning the IP involved, rather, those policies 
> should be justified by reference to what makes the "best" 
> standard. Some would argue that a "best" standard is one that 
> can be widely and freely implemented. That is justification 
> alone. There is no need to insult those who hold patents or 
> press valid and legal claims.
> 
> <flame>
> I will admit that I tend to take statements like those about 
> patent "ransom" rather personally. As the sole inventor on 
> four patents, I am insulted whenever anyone suggests that 
> patents are "theft" or tools of "ransom." As someone who has 
> spent his entire adult life building software for others, I 
> am insulted whenever Free Software Stallmanites accuse me of 
> theft or other crimes because of my expecting to be paid for 
> the good that I have brought society. </flame>
> 
> 		bob wyman
> 
>

---

From: Russell Nelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:32:00 -0500

> going to withdraw everything?  I don't think so.

Are you going to document it as an IPR claim?  What's the functional
difference?  In both cases, the standard has still been written down.
In other cases, implementors have to rely on their own resources to
respect the claim or not.  The difference is that in one case, *the
IETF does not standardize on RAND patents*.

 > of our patents or pending patents.

Fine.  Then you don't get your technology into an IETF standard.
Fewer people implement it.  Your business suffers.  Next time, you
aren't so stupid.  You give the IETF a license that lets people
implement the standard royalty-free.

 > considering except mine.

Besides the fact that this is fraud, and likely to get anyone doing
this in trouble with the law, you're neglecting one thing: What if
everyone does this?  Then you have a deadlock (everything appears to
be patented), no standard, and no gain from trying to game the
standards process.

What I'm suggesting is that the IETF should be true to its principles,
and refuse to standardize on ideas that belong to people who sometimes
withhold them from others.

---

From: Russell Nelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 01:30:14 -0500

Bob Wyman writes:
 > This working group is currently chartered to document current IETF
 > practice -- not serve as a forum for anti-IPR rabble-rousing.

Bob, current IETF practice is, for the most part, anti-IPR
rabble-rousing.  :-)

 > As someone who has spent his entire adult life building software
 > for others, I am insulted whenever Free Software Stallmanites
 > accuse me of theft or other crimes because of my expecting to be
 > paid for the good that I have brought society.

http://angry-economist.russnelson.com/patents-form-monopolies.html

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 03:01:31 -0500

Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> The issue isn't patents, it's patents on standards 
> that are not available, royalty-free, for practice 
> by everyone worldwide!
	And what happens when someone actually does patent something
truly innovative which would be useful to "everyone worldwide"? The vast
majority of patents are small improvements to existing processes and can
easily be drafted around in standards. In some cases, one might have to
go to the extent of doing what was done when the GIF patents became an
issue: i.e. invent PNG as an open alternative. But a small minority of
patents are for fundamental ideas or processes and cannot be easily
drafted around. A blanket policy such are you are suggesting would
either mean that standards could not be prepared for the use of such a
method or that the inventors of such a truly useful and innovative
method would not be able to receive the same benefits that accrue to an
inventor of some minor and insignificant method. i.e. the greater the
contribution inherent in the patented method, the less likely that the
IETF could deal with its subject matter. This cannot be right.
	A blanket rule against encumbered technology should fail if only
because it would block our ability to work with the best of ideas. On
the other hand, I would personally support a policy that encouraged WGs
to actively draft around known claims whenever possible and actively
update standards to eliminate discovered infringements -- if possible
and appropriate. In *many* cases, the "best" standard is one that is, in
fact, freely implemented by "everyone worldwide" without royalties. But,
this is not *always* the case.

>I'm an inventor myself, complete with brass plaque on the wall.
	I've found the coffee mugs to be somewhat more useful and more
compact...

		bob wyman

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:55:02 -0500

Larry,

Let's try part of this once more.

W3C is a consortium.  It has organizational members and charges 
high membership fees.  It carries out many of its development 
activities under signed agreements with those members and 
restricts access to many of its materials --while they are under 
development-- to those who have paid those fees and signed those 
agreements (or on the basis of case-by-case permissions which 
still involve agreement-signing).  And it has a skilled, 
professional, mostly full-time, and paid staff to evaluate 
issues, draw documents together, and take the lead in various 
areas.

IETF is, among other things, an open standards body, more open 
with regard to document accessibility and continual 
opportunities for input from the general public than, say ISO or 
ANSI.  We do not require or expect either formal membership 
(with fees and/or a signed agreement) or organizational backing 
to participate, nor do we require a formal organizational 
commitment or agreement for people who are supported by those 
organizations for participation.  We don't even require those 
who want to follow our work at the mailing list and 
document-reading level to identify themselves to other 
participants.  We also have no staff who are paid by the IETF to 
shape the technical content of standards.

There are, unquestionably, advantages to the W3C model and 
similar consortium models.  If nothing else, knowing exactly who 
is participating in, or even closely watching, a particular 
development effort provides a number of handles on keeping 
things orderly and uncomplicated.  It is also widely believed 
that keeping working groups small and focused, preferably with 
invited/approved membership and explicit technology 
contributions (whether W3C does that or not at a particular 
time, it is certainly within their agreements to do so, and they 
have done so in the past) helps get speedy and unambiguous 
conclusions and results.

There are some advantages to the IETF model too.  For example, 
the notion that people can participate fully without signing 
either checks or loyalty oaths to the IETF is highly valued 
around here.  We have also tended to value well-reasoned and 
documented dissent in preference to consensus-defining and 
voting processes that exclude alternate points of view (I fear 
sometimes that we their are trends away from those values, but 
that is another matter).

The IETF doesn't want to be the W3C and, in particular, doesn't 
want to adopt its organizational model.  I don't think the W3C 
wants to be IETF or adopt its organizational model either.  Yes, 
we have things to learn from each other (we do, after all, work 
closely together on some technical issues) and, yes, various 
pressures --financial, legal, or otherwise-- may move us 
somewhat closer together procedurally.   But statements of the 
nature of "W3C does it, therefore you should" are just not 
useful.

Finally, you folks are the lawyers.  Most of us are not, don't 
pretend to be, and don't want to be.  I haven't noticed Humpty 
Dumpty participating on this mailing list, at least under his 
own name, and the "[word] means just what I choose it to mean -- 
neither more nor less" principle is really hard on good 
communications.  This business of arguing for "royalty free 
licensing", only to later tell us it is code for a series of 
specific provisions, some of which have nothing to do with 
royalties, or for withdrawing standards "when patent claims are 
made" is wasting a lot of our time.  And the variant of then 
attacking people for assuming your works mean what they would 
mean if used conventionally because, in your private vocabulary, 
they mean something else, is particularly problematic.  I can't 
imagine you were taught to behave that way in law school.

regards,
    john

--On Tuesday, 11 March, 2003 17:07 -0800 "Lawrence E. Rosen" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> John,
>
> Whatever gave you the impression that all that has to happen
> is someone appear at IETF's door and claim patent rights?  Did
> someone suggest that IETF should say, "sorry Mr. Patent-Man,
> we'll withdraw our standard and go away."  You should assume
> many people who care will evaluate such claims to weed out the
> bogus ones.  Will we always be right?  Probably not, but we'll
> have to argue it out in public instead of letting each
> implementer or user evaluate the patents and negotiate
> licenses behind closed doors.  You suggest that we'll be
> bombarded with denial-of-service attacks.  I'd rather face
> those collectively instead of individually.
>
> 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. That's one of the policy choices
> facing IETF and other standards organizations.
>
> You say that withdrawing standards is a non-starter.  This was
> very definitely a starter at W3C, and a finisher too.  Exactly
> that process is described in the proposed W3C patent policy.

---

From: Russell Nelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:32:10 -0500

John C Klensin writes:
 > But statements of the nature of "W3C does it, therefore you should"
 > are just not useful.

A reply to this would be off-topic.

 > they mean something else, is particularly problematic.

Every profession has its vocabulary.  You shouldn't be surprised if
some of the words in that vocabulary overlapped with everyday English.
What is more of a concern is whether Larry is making up words that
other lawyers don't understand, or if you are misusing words in a
document which will be interpreted legally.

-- 
-russ nelson   angry-economist.russnelson.com   | "What Problem Are You Trying