RE: How we got here, RE: References to Redphone's "patent"

["Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[e-mail]>]

In my view major technical options should be decided before you start. This is a standards process, not an invention process.

I do not design protocols in committee, never have, never will. That type of work was possible when there were 40 people coming to IETF meetings and the problem was coordinating independent research projects. It is not a sensible use of people's time to do the type of unconstrained investigation you suggest with more than five people in the room.

Understanding the cost of the materials you intend to use is a key part of being an engineer. I like to work from price on the page catalogs. If a supplier wants to play 'guess my price' then I look to do the job another way.

What you suggest increases the leverage of patent trolls. The more working group effort is sunk into the idea that they claim proprietary ownership of, the more leverage they have. Moreover nobody can implement until the IPR issues are fully understood. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Fri 2/13/2009 6:40 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: How we got here, RE: References to Redphone's "patent"
 
Phill,

On 2009-02-14 10:41, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
...
> The proposal that I made then was that when a working group is started, it specify the IPR criteria under which it is chartered. In some cases it makes perfect sense to charter a group that will be using encumbered technology. In other cases the entire purpose of the group requires that any technology be open and unencumbered.

We've been round that argument enough times that it's become a tradition.

A priori rules like that make no sense for the IETF.

1. They inhibit innovative thinking within the WG process, because
they mean that the major technical options must basically be
decided before you start, so that you can decide which IPR regime
is going to work. And if you decide a priori to be RF, the available
solutions are dramatically constrained. Or to say it more emotively:
all the good ideas have been patented anyway.

2. They would assist the patent trolls, who could make sure to
quietly acquire patents that encumber the 'royalty free' solution
just in time for the standard to be widely adopted.

Leaving the choice until later in the process isn't perfect,
but it reduces these two risks and matches the reality of
IPR laws and practices, which are heavily based on RAND and
reciprocity, like it or not.

IMHO, as always.

    Brian