Re: [codec] A concrete proposal for requirements and testing

[Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]>]

Hi Kat,
Inline.
Regards, Stephan


On 4.9.2011 10:56 , "Kat Walsh" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> With hat:
>
>The same hat we're all wearing, the one that indicates "simply
>speaking your own opinion"?

The official job title was something like "Advisor to IESG re IPR matters
related to Codec WG".

>
>> In the IETF, as a group, we look at information made available by the
>> rightholders (to the IETF, or, when there are other SDOs involved, at
>> their disclosure system and/or their patent policy).  Those of us who
>>feel
>> qualified can also look at objectively verifiable (by anyone!) data such
>> as patent expiration dates.
>>
>> We do not look at known, rumored, or unknown licensing deals.  We do not
>> solicit such information.
>
>In fact, per BCP 79, it seems the opposite is true. We do look at
>licensing: "Although the IETF can make no actual determination of
>validity, enforceability or applicability of any particular IPR claim,
>it is reasonable that a working group will take into account on their
>own opinions of the validity, enforceability or applicability of
>Intellectual Property Rights in their evaluation of alternative
>technologies." And we do solicit such information: "Since IPR
>disclosures will be used by IETF working groups during their
>evaluation of alternative technical solutions, it is helpful if an IPR
>disclosure includes information about licensing of the IPR in case
>Implementing Technologies require a license."

Huh?  Let's sort this out:

"validity, enforceability, or applicability" surely have nothing to do
with licensing conditions, right?  They may have something to do whether
one may need a license to practice the technology, but not the conditions
under which the license is (or is not) granted...  So the first sentence
you cited appears to be unrelated to the issue in question.

The second sentence simply suggests to those making disclosures that a
disclosure is particularly helpful when it contains licensing information.
 The practice in the IETF is that ALL disclosures (except third party
disclosures) contain such information.  Many third party disclosures are
followed up by disclosures of the rightholders, providing licensing info.
I have absolutely no issue with the WG taking such information into
account.

Note, though, that I was talking about "licensing deals", and that the
context of this discussion has been that someone was arguing about
knowledge (or lack thereof) of royalty-bearing licensing deals.  This has
nothing to do with disclosures received.  (I don't have the exact
quotation readily available, and I'm too lazy to look it up.)

Note also that the IETF does not have a mechanism that allows someone to
state that there is no (known) patent right associated with a technology.
If someone dares to make such a statement, I would suggest to use any
random Blog that deals with IPR matters.  I'm sure the statement would
make headlines rather sooner than later :-)

>
>Not only is this information explicitly asked for, but I've never seen
>limitations on what we're all allowed to look at and consider, even if
>we have to dance around public discussion of some things that some
>participants or their employers misguidedly believe there is more
>safety in ignoring.

There are such limitations, both in the policy and in our typical conduct
of work in the IETF.  I could write pages about each.  However, I don't
see a value in doing so on this technical mailing list.  Also, let me
suggest that "misguidedly" may perhaps be a slightly misleading word...
Most big-corp employers base their policy (employees and patents) on
matters like this on legal experience that can easily be orders of
magnitude larger than yours and mine combined.

Please also note that I never advocate to ignore any information related
to IPR that comes into ones way.  It's IMO stupid to do so.  Talking about
such information makes a difference, though.  Business case for publishing
information and risks have to be carefully weighted.  Quite obviously, a
group of open source developers have very different tradeoffs to observe
than other entities.

>
>I can't see any justification for discouraging individuals from
>looking at as much information as is necessary to make their own
>informed decisions, even if the information is of no official interest
>to the process. 

Me not, either.  I never have argued against that point.  In fact, I have
quite often stated the same in the past.  Note, though, that researching
and talking in public about the results of such research are very
different things.  

>If people are broadly unwilling to deploy the
>technology, regardless of their reasons, then the goals of the charter
>are not met.

Absolutely.

>
>> Let's stay out of antitrust trouble.
>
>What kind of antitrust trouble are you thinking of? (You can't
>possibly be suggesting that choosing to use or not use a technology
>based on its patent licensing status has antitrust implications.)

I'm unwilling to discuss such matters on a technical mailing list.  If you
want to discuss it in private, please let me know.  It'll probably be by
phone...

>
>Cheers,
>Kat Walsh