www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject FW: IETF IP Contribution Policy
Date Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:35:41 GMT
At John Klensin's request, I am forwarding this email to the OSI and Apache
lists. /Larry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf@jck.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 10:32 AM
> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> Cc: 'Brian E Carpenter'; ipr-wg@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: IETF IP Contribution Policy
> As others have requested, I hope these notes are being forwarded
> to the other lists that you have copied.  My apologies to the
> IPR list for more traffic on the subject: it would really be
> useful, IMO, if we could clarify this issue enough to reduce the
> FUD, even if we don't end up in complete agreement.
> --On Friday, 19 January, 2007 09:43 -0800 Lawrence Rosen
> <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> >...
> > The Apache Software Foundation demands that. W3C and Oasis
> > demand that. Why shouldn't IETF?
> >...
> Assuming this question is not rhetorical, it deserves a response
> because that response, IMO, lies at the root of the issue here.
> Certainly, Larry, you are entitled to your opinion as to what
> the IETF should be doing.  You are even entitled to advocate for
> it passionately.  But hyperbole and pretending things are
> self-evidently true doesn't help us make progress and, at least
> IMO, reflects badly on you and perhaps on your profession.
> ANSI does not demand it.  IEEE does not demand it.  ISO does not
> demand it and ITU doesn't either.  Very few of the ISO national
> Member Bodies demand it.  The patent policies of these groups
> are not the same, but they  have in common that, like the IETF,
> they do not demand patent transfers as a condition of either
> standardization or participation. For each of them, the patent
> rights granted may, in practice, differ from one standard to the
> next.
> If I were to use the logic you appear to be using above, I would
> suggest that each of those groups, and the IETF, has developed
> and maintained more standards with serious impact on the
> marketplace than all three of the groups you identify put
> together.  I might then suggest that the difference in
> experience and marketplace success should turn the correct
> question into "why shouldn't Apache, W3C, and Oasis get in line
> with the IETF and the other, more established, SDOs".  But that
> would be as non-productive as I believe your line of argument to
> be.
> The more useful answer is that the field has a long history of
> useful developments occurring in two types of forums.  One is
> often characterized as a consortium, with specific membership
> requirements that often include high fees and/or rather specific
> and legally-binding conditions for participation, often
> including release of patent rights... either to the consortium,
> to other participants on some sort of "share alike" basis, or
> more generally.   One nice thing about a consortium model is
> that it is clear that enterprises and individuals that do not
> share the consortium's specific goals, objectives, and, often,
> intended methods (I'm tempted to add "religion") are not welcome
> and typically don't join or are quickly eased out.    The three
> organizations you name conform more or less well to the
> consortium definition.
> The other model is what is usually called a Standards
> Development Organization (SDO), Open Standards Body, or some
> variation on those terms.  They tend to be more open than the
> consortia -- "open" in the sense of accommodating a wider range
> of enterprises, inputs, goals, and policies.  In most cases,
> they even try to invite and respect a balance of interests,
> although that can be more or less explicit.   One thing that the
> SDOs I have listed above, and the IETF, have in common is that
> we don't tell people "if you don't accept our view that
> standardization does not imply free and general licensing,
> without restrictions or application procedures of any sort, you
> are not welcome to participate here".  All of us --again, in
> different terms and different degrees of explicitness-- are
> "open" enough to tell organizations "you are welcome to come in
> here, disclose your IPR claims, present your technology, and
> make the case that it is important enough, and enough better
> than the alternatives, to justify standardization despite the
> encumbrances.
> We, and many of the rest of the SDO group, have historically
> believed that this is more open, and more likely to lead to best
> practice results, than applying entrance constraints that tell
> some parties they can't participate.   We believe that our
> arrangements are more likely to yield the best solutions when
> all of the issues and considerations are balanced --on a
> per-standard basis when necessary-- rather than having to select
> the best solution that is consistent with the sometimes much
> narrower range of choices dictated by the absolute criterion of
> one particular patent licensing regime.
> You may disagree.  You may continue advocating strongly for your
> particular point of view (although preferably not on this list)
> whether you disagree or not.  But please stop suggesting that
> your position is the only possible rational one, that everyone
> else is doing things the way you prefer and only the IETF is
> deviant, or that the IETF is suddenly adopting a regressive
> policy.  That approach doesn't help us move forward... and
> because the "engineers" out here are fairly good at reasoning
> through things, it doesn't advance your case either.
>   regards,
>      john

DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message