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

[Kat Walsh <[e-mail]>]

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"?

> 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."

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.

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

> 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.)

Cheers,
Kat Walsh