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

Ted,

You said:

>Putting an IPR statement at the bottom of an obscure draft that defines something very simple and obvious, that nobody would ever expect anybody to patent, isn't sufficient.   If you are claiming a patent on something, you should say so explicitly when you announce the draft, or when, subsequent to announcing the draft, you decide to add the IPR statement.   It has apparently become our collective job to read the IPR statement at the bottom of every copy of every draft that goes by to make sure there's no stealth patent claim, but tragically I wasn't aware of this until today.   Normally, I read drafts for technical issues, not for legal issues.   :'(

Stealth patent claim?  Its in the draft precisely so it isn't
stealth, for goodness sake!

And, frankly, folks, it is not a big deal.  Nobody is dumb enough
to charge royalties.  Don't be naive.  If any company *made* it a
big deal by charging $$, all of the goodwill they get from their
customers for working with the IETF would be out the window.  It
would be a major black eye from a marketing standpoint.  Why
would anyone work with the IETF at all?  For the good of mankind?
Well, sure, that's why we do it -- but why does my boss let me?
Because it *is* good for the industry and because our customers
know it and our customers appreciate standards based solutions.

Anyone who would invest time with the IETF and then blow it all
away by charging royalty $$ would deserve the black eye they'd
get from it.   This isn't a big deal, and I don't know why people
are trying to make it so.  Talk to a marketing person about it,
why don't you.

I'm not saying that someone won't file a patent and hold us all
up about it for big $$$ -- I'm saying that they won't work with
the IETF to any great degree and then do that.

-------- A slightly different issue ----------------------

Anyway, Ted, your personal issues on royalty-free as opposed to
the more normal wording is, in practice, going to create more
problems than it solves in the DHC WG.  You should take this up
with the overall IETF, and get the policy changed, if you want to
(though I believe it isn't necessary)  

But if you filibuster every non-zero royalty IPR, then here is
what can happen...

I have submitted a patent for some technology (the
server-id-override stuff) that I thought was pretty unique, for
two reasons:

        1.  So that someone else doesn't patent it and force me
        to not use it (since I can't assume they will do the
        "reasonable and not ..." approach).

        2.  I get something slightly more than token $$ from my
        company.

If you think I need the $$ enough for #2 to the sole reason,
you've never worked with a patent lawyer, believe you me!  Well,
I also get a plaque someday.  Wow!

But, while my company has never, to my knowledge, asked for any $
for any of the IETF patents/IPR's we've got, I can't personally
force them to make a patent that I seek be a guaranteed zero $
patent.

So, when I write a draft about new technology, I have two
choices.  I can file the patent first, so that we can all use it
(since I actually trust my company to continue to do what they've
always done in this regard, for the reasons I expressed above),
or I can skip it and just submit the draft.  Of course, the next
fellow who may write that patent may well not have the same
interests that we do in this, and then *none* of us get to use
it.

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?

Thanks for listening -- Kim

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg