Subject: RE: question about IETF policy on RF patent policies

From: "Ling, Hung C (Hung)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:26:42 -0400

I read the GSC resolution (as quoted in Harald's email) as presenting a choice compared to mandatory compensation-free licensing, since reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing includes the choice of compensation-free which can be offered by the patent holder.  The distinction is "mandatory".  Thus I do not see the GSC resolution as in conflict with the technology-rights document which also offers a range of licensing choices.

Thanks,  Hung

-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 2:52 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: question about IETF policy on RF patent policies

Danny,

since the resolution

> concludes
>
> that protection of intellectual property rights is necessary to ensure
> that the best and most innovative technology is made available for
> inclusion in standards and that such innovation should be encouraged;
>
> resolves
>
> that the participating standards organizations of GSC support reasonable
> and non-discriminatory intellectual property licensing provisions and
> voice their opposition to mandatory compensation-free licensing
> provisions.

seems at odds with the language of draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights:

   In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR
   claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of
   royalty-free licensing.

and draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines:

5.6 Licensing Terms

   Licensing terms vary across a range from no license required at all
   to prohibitive.  In general, working groups show a preference for
   technologies with IPR considerations in approximately the following
   order.  This list does not constitute a rule, and every working group
   needs to take its own circumstances into account.

   o  License not required.

   o  Licensed with no restrictions.

   o  IPR licensed with no material restrictions, e.g. no trademark
      license required.

   o  IPR licensed for a particular field of use but with no other
      material restrictions, e.g. licensed solely for implementations
      complying with a standard.

   o  IPR licensed under royalty-free terms and reasonable and
      non-discriminatory restrictions.

   o  IPR licensed under reasonable and non-discriminatory restrictions.
      This may include payment of a royalty.

   o  IPR which is otherwise licensable.

   o  IPR which is not licensable, i.e. which is only available as an
      implementation.

   o  IPR which is not available under any conditions.

I think you can take it as given that the IETF does not support the 
statement.

(actually, the IETF might support the *resolution* part - this group, too, 
has had a large number of participants opposing mandatory compensation-free 
licensing conditions - but I cannot imagine any situation where the IETF 
could support the *conclusion* above.....)

                     Harald

_______________________________________________
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: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:41:52 +0200

--On onsdag, juni 11, 2003 09:26:42 -0400 "Ling, Hung C (Hung)" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I read the GSC resolution (as quoted in Harald's email) as presenting a
> choice compared to mandatory compensation-free licensing, since
> reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing includes the choice of
> compensation-free which can be offered by the patent holder.  The
> distinction is "mandatory".  Thus I do not see the GSC resolution as in
> conflict with the technology-rights document which also offers a range of
> licensing choices.

agreed.
it's the part that goes

>> inclusion in standards

that I don't think the IETF community has consensus on.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 17:36:33 +0200

> that I don't think the IETF community has consensus on.

nor on its converse, which is exactly why we have a flexible policy.

   Brian

P.S. GSC may have imposing membership, but as far as I know it has
no authority apart from that of its members.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg