RE: References to Redphone's "patent"

"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com> Fri, 13 February 2009 21:43 UTC

Return-Path: <pbaker@verisign.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1F913A6BE5 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:43:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.424
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.424 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.175, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id COHTrOVHRVXF for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:43:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from colibri.verisign.com (colibri.verisign.com [65.205.251.74]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF3CF3A698E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:43:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mou1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (mailer1.verisign.com [65.205.251.34]) by colibri.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id n1DLK2oN017470; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:20:02 -0800
Received: from MOU1WNEXMB09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.25.15.197]) by mou1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:43:53 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C98E24.29FE38C8"
Subject: RE: References to Redphone's "patent"
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:42:36 -0800
Message-ID: <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C3166155768B297@mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: References to Redphone's "patent"
Thread-Index: AcmOGjQY/+s3NpLrRIORnyU380qevAACcgLc
References: <20090213190630.56CF76BE54F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <200902132030.n1DKUfnJ010952@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Feb 2009 21:43:53.0686 (UTC) FILETIME=[2A539F60:01C98E24]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 21:43:47 -0000

No, please do not go there.

You do not want negotiating flexibility in this type of situation. Instead of looking how to arrive at a deal, the IETF needs to think about structuring the incentives so that there is no gain for a patent troll.


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Thomas Narten
Sent: Fri 2/13/2009 3:30 PM
To: Noel Chiappa
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: References to Redphone's "patent"
 
jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) writes:

>     > From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>

>     > the previous IPR WG .. refused even to discuss a patent policy for IETF.

> I thought the IETF sort of had one, though (see RFC mumble)?

> I definitely agree that the IETF could use some sort of permanent
> legal IPR consulting board that WG's could go to and say 'we have
> this IPR filing, what does it mean, and what is the likely impact on
> our work'.

Please don't go there.

IPR consultation is all about risk analysis. And risk to the IETF
vs. risk to me personally vs. risk to my employer vs. risk to somebody
else's employer, etc. All are VERY different things.

I don't see an IPR consulting board as being helpful at all. It will
still come down to someone else trying to tell *me* (or you) that I
(or you) shouldn't worry about something, yet it might well be *my*
(or your) skin if things go awry.

The IETF absolutely and fundamentally needs stay out of evaluating the
merits of potential IPR and what the associated risks are. This is
fundamentally an individual decision that every implementor needs to
make on their own.

This principle has been a bedrock of the IETF's IPR policy for a very
long time, and for good reason.

Oh, and another important point, even when we have IPR disclosures,
they are often for patent applications, which are not public, nor have
they been issued (so they are only potential patents). In such cases,
there is precious little an advisory board could tell us, other than
"we don't know"...

Thomas
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf