Re: [dhcwg] IPR statement related to draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-X.txt

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Feb 6, 2004, at 3:54 PM, Kim Kinnear wrote:
> If I think you will prevent the draft from moving forward, then I
> may skip the patent.  And the other guy may not even tell us
> about their patent(s) until after we've all started using the
> technology and become dependent on it.
>
> Is this the choice you want me to make?  Seriously?

I am pretty sure that it doesn't matter which of these two avenues you 
pursue, as long as you publish the draft before the stealth patent is 
filed.   I am not arguing that people shouldn't do defensive patents.   
I am arguing that this wg should not advance drafts that have patent 
terms that could be used to prevent the distribution of open source 
software or that could be damaging to companies that have no patent 
portfolio for cross-licensing.

I am trying to be consistent with regard to various drafts that are 
under consideration by the wg - it is not at all my intention to say 
that any of the companies who have IP interests in these drafts 
actually have any bad intentions, and indeed we have a long history 
that suggest otherwise, at least in the case of Cisco (maybe in the 
case of PacketFront as well, but I'd never heard of them until this 
came up).

It is not even my motivation to defend Nominum from some imagined 
future problem like this - Nominum is a commercial entity, not an 
individual open source developer.   So I'm speaking with my Ted hat on, 
not my Nominum hat (indeed, I think the folks at Nominum would be quite 
dismayed if I claimed to represent Nominum's opinions here!).

It is my right as a member of the WG to make this argument against a 
draft.   It is the right of other members of the WG to agree with me, 
or to disagree with me.   It is Ralph's job to decide whether or not 
there's consensus to advance the draft.   We are all doing our jobs 
here; there's no need to get emotional about this.

Having said that, I must apologize for overstepping the bounds of my 
job as a WG participant.   It was pointed out to me that my position 
toward PacketFront was inconsistent with my position toward Cisco.   In 
the process of trying to establish some consistency, I responded in a 
very defensive way to John, and said some things about the 
circumstances of the release of the Cisco 802.1x suboption draft which 
I do not know to be true, based solely on my admittedly poor memory.   
I also said something that for some readers seemed to imply that I 
thought Cisco was planning something nefarious.   This is not what I 
meant - I was just explaining the logical reasoning behind preferring 
"zero royalty" to "reasonable" in an IPR statement.

I am sorry for having gone overboard in my response to John, and I'm 
particularly sorry for any offense I may have caused to the folks at 
Cisco, many of whom I have worked with for over a decade in various 
corporate incarnations, and all of whom, including John, I hold in very 
high esteem.   It's been a privilege working with all of you lo these 
many years, and I absolutely hate feeling like I'm at odds with you.

I am not going to withdraw my argument for not advancing the 
subscriber-id draft, because I believe it is correct, and within the 
purview of this wg.   If Ralph determines that I'm the lone wolf here, 
I will respect the wg's decision.   I encourage other members of the WG 
to make their wishes known, whether they agree with me or disagree with 
me, but I hope that despite my own example we will not get into a long 
flamewar on the pros and cons of software patents.   We are all 
reasonable people here, and have been at IETF long enough to know that 
we are not going to convert each other.


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg