Re: [codec] Skype IPR disclosure

[stephen botzko <[e-mail]>]

BCP 79 specifically says "No patent search is required" either by
individuals or by the working group.

If you know of blocking patents held by a third party, you should simply
file the third-party disclosure, there is no need to discuss it on the
list.  If you don't know of blocking patents, then there is nothing to
discuss.

So I stand by my assertion -

The only case where examining the details of the patents in an IPR
disclosure is ever necessary  is when (1) the license terms are unacceptable
to the community, *and* (2) we need to use *some* of the referenced
technology in the standard.

Stephen Botzko


On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Rob Glidden <[e-mail]>wrote:

>  Even if the licensing terms are acceptable, offered IPR may well depend on
> blocking patents owned by others.
>
> All the more likely in the case of more recent and narrowly-defined
> technologies.
>
> Rob
>
>
> stephen botzko wrote:
>
> >>> Stephan Wenger worte....
> I continue to believe that it is within the IETF policy (and, arguably,
> within common sense) to let people decide for themselves whether they want
> to participate in discussions concerning third party patent matter, and,
> independently of the outcome of this decision, still participate in the WG
> (for example on purely technical subjects).  My fear is that, by exposing
> folks to patent numbers and handy hyperlinks to patent material, you take
> some of this choice away.
>
> So I believe that both “willful ignorance” and “avoidance [of exposure to
> patent numbers]” are both within the language and the spirit of the IETF’s
> patent policy.
>  >>>
> I agree completely (also with  your reply to Marc).
>
> In practice, we begin by individually reviewing the IPR disclosures are
> they announced.  99.9% of the time, the commercial terms are completely
> acceptable, so there is no reason to do anything further.
>
> The only case where examining the details of the patents in an IPR is ever
> necessary  is when (1) the terms are unacceptable to the community, *and*(2) we need to use
> *some* of the referenced technology in the standard.  Even in that case,
> it is best if the work is structured in such a way that so people can opt
> out.
>
> In this particular situation, there has been no decision yet to use the
> Skype contribution in the standard, so there is no reason to start diving
> into this IPR disclosure are all right now.
>
> Stephen Botzko
>
>
>