Re: [OAUTH-WG] IPR on OAuth bearer

[Michael Thomas <[e-mail]>]

On 05/09/2012 01:26 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> On 05/09/2012 08:34 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>> On 05/09/2012 12:17 PM, Eran Hammer wrote:
>>> Whoever you talk to for legal advice about IPR issues related to
>>> standards you might implement. My only point is, this group is not
>>> qualified to comment on IPR matters.
>> The IETF gets to decide whether it wants to create standards that
>> use (potentially) encumbered IP. It is the wg's responsibility to
>> decide whether it is a necessary evil, or whether the damage can be
>> routed around. How a working group does that without having a
>> discussion is a mystery to me.
> Yeah, its tricky stuff. The key point as I understand it is
> not to get into discussion about licensing arrangements or
> other commercial matters, nor about the validity of the IPR
> itself, which are not our business. While we may or may not
> have opinions that 90+% of the output of all patent offices
> in the ICT space is pure rubbish, those are not directly
> relevant for the WG. If you're not sure, ask the chairs or
> me and we can try help.

Yes, I completely agree.
>
> The question is as Hannes stated: does this new information
> change the WG's opinion of this document or not. Silence is
> taken to mean "not" in this case.
>

That's not what I read Eran as asking for:

"So no discussion of this is expected on the list - correct?"

That a lot different from "off topic discussion".

Mike