Subject: Motivation to submit an idea in IETF?

From: Abhishek Verma <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 06:27:33 +0530

Hi,

I have a basic question relating to patents and IETF.

Assume that i have a nifty idea on how i can speed up, lets say, a
database exchange in OSPF. My doubt is that why should i submit an
IETF draft describing this, which can later become an RFC, when i can
very well patent this idea? I understand that if i submit this to
IETF, then there will be an RFC and all vendors will come out with
inter-operable implementations. However, if i dont give it to IETF and
rather submit a patent, i can do very well for the vendor that i work
for. All customers using this vendor's boxes will now have access to
patented database exchange in OSPF, which will effectively mean more
business for this vendor.

So, the question is, what is the motivation for somebody to write an
internet-draft when the person can file a patent?

I spoke to several people offline and i couldnt get any good answers.
The typical response was that most ISPs prefer multiple vendors, and a
patented solution will cause issues as the other vendor will not have
that support. Is this the only  reason?

Thanks,
Abhishek

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:10:58 -0800

>I spoke to several people offline and i couldnt get any good answers.

I suspect that you got many good answers, maybe all different. The fact that many people have different motivations for submitting their work to the IETF instead of {something else} is a feature, not a bug.

>that support. Is this the only  reason?

No.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Abhishek Verma <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:00:38 +0530

Hi Paul,

> I suspect that you got many good answers, maybe all different. The fact that many people have different motivations for submitting > their work to the IETF instead of {something else} is a feature, not a bug.

And what are those motivations? Wouldnt patenting be the most obvious
thing to do?

>>that support. Is this the only  reason?

This may not be the only reason, but is this a valid reason at all?

Thanks,
Abhishek

---

From: "Greg Daley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:51:32 +1100

Hi Ashishek

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Abhishek Verma
> Sent: Friday, 22 January 2010 12:31 PM
> To: Paul Hoffman
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Motivation to submit an idea in IETF?
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> > I suspect that you got many good answers, maybe all 
> different. The fact that many people have different 
> motivations for submitting > their work to the IETF instead 
> of {something else} is a feature, not a bug.
> 

(Please note that my response is informational only and does not constitute
comments on any IETF policy or existing IPR claim.)

I think that whetever the reason, documents submitted to the IETF
are less likely to become standards track RFCs if there is critical
IPR which must be licensed in order to construct the protocol.

The IPR BCPs for the IETF enforce disclosure of known IPRs when an idea
is submitted for consideration. This tries to make the issue above board.

When IPR becomes known, unless it is accompanied by permissive license statements
the community often prefers unencumbered technologies.  This allows the standards
to be adopted by the widest number of users on the Internet, regardless of
whether they have money to pay license fees.

In terms of benefits which may be acquired by submitting IPR-free or
royalty-free IPR ideas to IETF, there may be value purely from creating a common
protocol to talk between vendors, an end-user may wish to drive standardized 
solutions where no or vendor only solutions exist, or there may be a desire
to make the Internet better from a community interest point of view.

As far as I know, in terms of creating or adding value to a business aligned
with work on IETF, there may be additional non-IETF focussed systems which can
be built on-top of, or around an unencumbered idea.  Such peripheral IPR could
then be used to build a business case with some protection.  It may require
some sophistication to ensure that the external idea/IPR does not impinge upon the
IETF submitted idea.

Please note that I am not an expert on this and you would need an Intellectual
Property Lawyer to look into the issue, if your business depended on building IPR.  

I hope this helps,

Sincerely,
Greg Daley

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:08:38 -0800

>And what are those motivations? Wouldnt patenting be the most obvious

Clearly not. There are literally thousands of existence proofs for that.

>This may not be the only reason, but is this a valid reason at all?

Yes. Again, there are literally thousands of existence proofs for that.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:29:05 -0700

The IETF, like any other standard body, isn't about publishing idea or inventing things, but all about enabling interoperability between discrete implementations and parties. Patents do not enable interoperability on their own because of their nature and limitations (at least in the US). However, patents are often involved when engineering interop solutions.

The questions you have to ask yourself are: Are you looking to create a new market? Is this market more likely to succeed if it is open for all and free to participate or fee-based? Are you going to make a greater profit in an open (bigger) market or in a closed (usually smaller) market?

EHL

On 1/21/10 4:57 PM, "Abhishek Verma" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Hi,

Thanks,
Abhishek
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 01:56:50 -0600

> IPR which must be licensed in order to construct the protocol.

As somebody who makes a living explaining patents to people who feel  
threatened by an infringement suit, the simple fact is that the IETF  
is appallingly (and blissfully) ignorant of the vast number of patents  
that are filed relating to our RFCs. In general, we do not discover  
that there is critical IPR until well after the  protocol is  
published, then we get mad about it.

One rational for publishing rather than patenting is cost. If the goal  
is to assure your rights to use your own invention rather than paying  
a fee to a patent troll for that use, thorough publication of the  
invention as early as possible may be a cost-effective solution in  
countries whose regimes discredit 3rd-party patents of already- 
published ideas. I've used this technique fairly effectively in patent- 
busting in the US. I've even used mailing-list records to provide  
invalidation arguments.

Writing an internet-draft describing the invention is cheap. Filing a  
patent application is expensive. There are documentation fees, legal  
fees, artwork fees, filing fees, maintenance fees, patent search fees,  
and the ongoing hassle and expense of examination, re-examination,  
forced continuations, and so on. You might spend upwards of $50,000 to  
get a patent (although some do cost much less, especially the do-it- 
yourself filings). And then you have to enforce the patent, and that's  
not cheap; you have to look for people who might voluntarily license  
it and negotiate with them, and you have to look for people who have  
infringed it and work through a more adversarial negotiation or even  
an infringement suit. I've seen infringement suits run above half a  
million dollars.

But if you have a patent, don't maintain it, and don't enforce it, it  
gets weaker or might even completely evaporate. Sure, it serves as  
strong prior art to keep some other bozo from patenting the exact same  
thing even if you let the patent "go to seed", but all they have to do  
is tack on one important additional claim that your didn't foresee,  
and you're back to having to pay the troll.

A submitted application is strong prior art. A published paper or  
internet-draft is pretty good, but not as good. A really clear write- 
up in mailing-list email can be helpful, especially if the "inventor  
of record" (the person  whose name is on the patent app) is an active  
participant on that mailing list.

So it all comes down to intent: If your business is a real participant  
in the industry and you're going to make your money off of building  
and selling a product that includes the invention, you may get  
adequate protection for your business by publishing the invention  
early on. If you're a big fish in the industry, then you probably can  
benefit from having a pool of patents for cross-licensing with the  
other big fish, so filing might be useful. And of course, if you're  
not really participating in the industry but hope to make money off of  
licensing the invention, then filing is the only way to go, although  
it's harder to make money off such a patent than you might think.

In: "A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the  
World." (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007. xii + 420  
pp. $30 (cloth), ISBN: 978-0-691-12135-2), the author Gregory Clark  
cites a number of cases relating to patented inventions in the textile  
industry, where the inventors who relied on patents for their funding  
died penniless, but the people who just built things and made product  
with them experienced economic success. It's a good lesson to us all.  
Its' a "good read" as well, and I highly recommend it; my depressing  
theory, however, is that we're falling off the tail of the success  
hump and sliding back into a strictly Malthusian model of supply,  
demand, and starvation.

--
Dean

---

From: "Greg Daley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 21:45:57 +1100

Hi Dean,

Sorry while I interrupt your melancholy ;)

> hump and sliding back into a strictly Malthusian model of supply,  

If (as I guess) you are right that demand outstrips our ability to generate
resources, then the least we can do is push back the barrier by making things
more efficient.

IETF protocols have been one of the mechanisms which have significantly 
reduced the cost of deploying useful robust communications networks.

Eventually, this may reach a point where networking is commodified beyond
the point where companies have an interest in flying staff around the world
to attend meetings.  I hope that by that stage we will have done work enough to 
"eat our own dog food" and run equally as effective (and more efficient) 
meetings online.

Notably, I have attended via work, and self funded (intermittently).  My finding
us that it is hard to get a company to stump up cash for IETF trips unless they
have a pecuniary or academic (which I guess is similar) interest.

Greg

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:53:49 +0200

Abhishek,

Putting aside the question about patents for the moment, companies make 
decisions about standardized vs. proprietary technology all the time. 
Sometimes what makes sense for them is keeping a particular technical 
solution to themselves. Sometimes a standard is in their interests, and 
this it the reason why they might want you to participate in the IETF, 
submit drafts, etc. Some of the reasons why a standard is useful include:

- being able to work with other vendors that provide other pieces of the 
overall solution
- using a standard to gain more customer interest, creating a bigger market
- customer pressure
- government and legal requirements (e.g., mandates to open up 
particular interfaces to increase competition)
- ability to have fun meetings^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H get wider 
review, which improves technical quality and avoids hidden flaws

Jari

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:17:38 +0200

Greg, Dean,

Cheer up :-)

Eventually, this may reach a point where networking
is commodified beyond

the point where companies have an interest in flying staff around the
world

to attend meetings.

I have a hard time believing that we ever stop developing our
communication mechanisms and applications. It might be the case that
work moves up the stack as the lower parts are so universally deployed
that it makes no sense to produce further standards on them, however.
This means that the IETF needs to choose wisely what it works on.

Jari

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:47:57 -0500

> internet-draft when the person can file a patent?

These are not mutually exclusive.  You can patent your idea for various
reasons.  You can write a draft to describe it.

However, if you want others to adopt your idea and interoperate with it
(and network operators really do like equipment that interoperates), you
need to provide reasonable licensing terms, if you require a license at
all.  Trying to make money off patents is not easy unless you are
already making money off your equipment sales.

Dean Willis allegedly wrote on 01/22/2010 02:56 EST:
> threatened by an infringement suit, the simple fact is that the IETF is
> appallingly (and blissfully) ignorant of the vast number of patents that
> are filed relating to our RFCs. In general, we do not discover that
> there is critical IPR until well after the  protocol is published, then
> we get mad about it.

I expect them, but I do get mad about patent trolls "bleeding the golden
goose".  The only reason these patents have any value is because the
Internet has value.  When people who contribute nothing to that value
then come along and parasitize it,

Scott

---

From: Jorge Amodio <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:18:55 -0600

> then come along and parasitize it,

Can I patent/copyright that statement ? :-).

Abhishek, if your idea is a good one that can contribute to the
networking community, I'd first make sure it is original, search/read
drafts or associated papers to see if by any chance somebody already
had the idea before, if you don't find anything you can publish a
paper and propose a draft. If your idea is original, has value and
represents an improvement or additional feature to a protocol after
surviving the grueling process of peer reviews and discussions then
you may have something worth the effort/cost/time to get a patent.

I the "implementation" of your idea provides value in the sense that
may help them sell more or provide a better service, vendors will
include it in their products.

If you are just for the money, then wrong forum.

My .02

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:31:06 -0500

Abhishek,

The overriding reason, as far as I'm concerned, is that many or most
service providers have a policy of avoiding equipment purchases that
lock them into a single vendor if at all possible. Second sources are
necessary for a number of reasons, and not only for competition - what
happens if the selected vendor goes out of business, has a supply
chain failure, kills the product for whatever reason, or alternatively
simply can't meet the demand for the product? That's why you see
carriers sponsoring or conducting their own interoperability testing,
and include interoperability requirements in their RFPs. And while
interoperability can be obtained through private agreements between
vendors, it's much easier for all concerned if there are standardized
solutions that have been publicly vetted and agreed upon by the
community at large (both vendors and service providers).

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:26:51 +0100

> then come along and parasitize it,

Eh... how come the Internet has value? And what is the motivation for 
maintaining the IETF itself, or the ISOC for that matter? I'm not sure 
whether good answers should be articulated in terms of business models 
or just /people/.

This habit of patenting ideas has to stop. The sooner the better.

---

From: Yaakov Stein <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:47:34 +0200

Abhishek, 

I see that you have already received multiple answers, 
but as someone who deals with IPR and standardization,
I would like to make a few points.

First, since you ask about motivation, I would ask you what is your motivation
for filing a patent? In software and communications patent applications are almost never
filed for the reasons that they are filed in the classical practical arts,
namely to acquire exclusivity for a certain time.
The fact that they take so long to be granted (often 4-5 years),
and that it is so difficult to predict whether they will be granted,
effectively rules out acquiring a reasonable window of exclusivity.

Instead, there are two main reasons to file -
big companies file in order to have sufficient defenses against other big companies
who may attack them, and small companies file in order to be attractive to
big companies who may acquire them. 

Note that large companies almost never sue smaller ones for infringement
(as the small companies don't have the resources to pay anyway);
if threatened, it is much easier to lock them out of sales channels
or to acquire them.
Large companies sue other large companies for many reasons,
but only infrequently to acquire exclusivity.
Trolls go after large companies (who can afford to pay), 
since the large company's patent portfolio doesn't threaten them.
Small companies almost never sue other small companies
(neither have the resources).
Small companies who sue larger ones are probably doing so more
for the PR than for the IPR aspects.

Second, what is the motivation for submitting ideas to SDOs such as the IETF?
One reason is to push an approach for which you have an advantage, 
under the assumption that if standardized you have get an effective exclusivity window.
Another is to impede progress when your approach is not accepted
until you have the time to implement the accepted approach.
Finally, the very fact that you contribute to a document gives you 
(and in some SDOs, your company) the visibility to potential customers.

So if you are looking for a window of exclusivity,
it is probably safer to invest time in standardization.
The window may be shorter, but 17 years is probably meaningless
for most inventions in software and communications anyway.

If you are looking for your invention to be actually implemented,
it is certainly better to place it in the public domain
(or at least patent it and offer to RAND license it)
and propose its standardization.

If you really want to make money using patents, 
then filing is too risky and too expensive.
Buy up already granted ones that are being sold by companies 
going out of business - they may not be good enough to keep a company solvent,
but you may be able to get substantial nuisance payments
from large companies.

Y(J)S

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Abhishek Verma
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 02:58
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Motivation to submit an idea in IETF?

Hi,

Thanks,
Abhishek