If this list is still active, people might be interested: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16948544 Regards Brian Carpenter
In the same spirit: http://www.scribd.com/doc/80976133/12-02-08-Google-to-IEEE-on-MMI-Patents http://www.scribd.com/doc/80899178/11-11-11-Apple-Letter-to-ETSI-on-FRAND http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/iplicensing /ip2.aspx I learned of all three from fosspatents. Dare one believes that phone calls have been made?(Continue reading)On a more serious note, I recall that the spirit of these letters (perhaps minus the one from google/MMI) seems somewhat similar to what was going on in ETSI a few years ago (google, for MCOI). MCOI was not going anywhere. Interestingly enough, MMI was one of the staunch supporters of that initiative. Stephan On 2.8.2012 15:23 , "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter <at> gmail.com> wrote: >If this list is still active, people might be interested: > >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16948544 > >Regards > Brian Carpenter > >
I find this very interesting. I have recently been approached by the in-house counsel from a very large vendor. He wanted to know if the IETF would be willing to require royalty-free commitments for essential patents in standards-track RFCs. I indicated that this was a significant change, and it is difficult to enforce on parties that do not participate in the standards making process. This idea is taking the ideas that Apple suggests in this article even further. Is there support for _any_ of these ideas? Russ On Feb 8, 2012, at 6:23 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > If this list is still active, people might be interested: > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16948544 > > Regards > Brian Carpenter
On Feb 9, 2012, at 1:41 08PM, Russ Housley wrote: > I find this very interesting. > > I have recently been approached by the in-house counsel from a very large vendor. He wanted to know if the IETF would be willing to require royalty-free commitments for essential patents in standards-track RFCs. I indicated that this was a significant change, and it is difficult to enforce on parties that do not participate in the standards making process. This idea is taking the ideas that Apple suggests in this article even further. > > Is there support for _any_ of these ideas? There was certainly some support in the IPR WG for that, back when we adopted the current policies. It would pay to reread the WG minutes and the archives of the discussions. --Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
On 2/9/2012 10:41 AM, Russ Housley wrote: > I find this very interesting. > > I have recently been approached by the in-house counsel from a very large vendor. He wanted to know if the IETF would be willing to require royalty-free commitments for essential patents in standards-track RFCs. I indicated that this was a significant change, and it is difficult to enforce on parties that do not participate in the standards making process. This idea is taking the ideas that Apple suggests in this article even further. > > Is there support for _any_ of these ideas? > > Russ > Yes of course since the IETF changed from a trailing edge practice to a leading edge practice. But the real issue is what happens to parties when they intentionally implement code or practices or for that matter standards when proper IPR notices are already on file - especially those which say "No IETF, you weasels don't get this IP for free"... The real issue is whether there is damage beyond civil here. My take is that the intent in this group is to create IP anarchy and it needs to be spanked and spanked hard. Todd > > On Feb 8, 2012, at 6:23 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> If this list is still active, people might be interested:(Continue reading)
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Russ Housley <housley <at> vigilsec.com> wrote: > I find this very interesting. > > I have recently been approached by the in-house counsel from a very large vendor. He wanted to know if the IETF would be willing to require royalty-free commitments for essential patents in standards-track RFCs. I indicated that this was a significant change, and it is difficult to enforce on parties that do not participate in the standards making process. This idea is taking the ideas that Apple suggests in this article even further. I would like to see an actual proposal before I commented further. I suspect that there would be some details here.... Regards Marshall > > Is there support for _any_ of these ideas? > > Russ > > > On Feb 8, 2012, at 6:23 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> If this list is still active, people might be interested: >> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16948544 >> >> Regards >> Brian Carpenter >(Continue reading)
--On Thursday, February 09, 2012 13:41 -0500 Russ Housley <housley <at> vigilsec.com> wrote: > I find this very interesting. > > I have recently been approached by the in-house counsel from a > very large vendor. He wanted to know if the IETF would be > willing to require royalty-free commitments for essential > patents in standards-track RFCs. I indicated that this was a > significant change, and it is difficult to enforce on parties > that do not participate in the standards making process. This > idea is taking the ideas that Apple suggests in this article > even further. > > Is there support for _any_ of these ideas? Russ, (strictly personal opinion...) Remember the RSA issue and a few other things that contributed to shaping IETF's current policy, I would be opposed to a change that prevented something from moving forward on the standards track unless it came with some particular form of license or license commitment. I think the ability of a WG to accept a restricted/ encumbered technology if it sees the issue as important and the technology as clearly superior to the alternatives is one of our strengths.(Continue reading)
On 2/9/2012 10:51 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Russ Housley <housley <at> vigilsec.com> wrote: >> I find this very interesting. >> >> I have recently been approached by the in-house counsel from a very large vendor. We need the name of the vendor here Russ... and now - no delays, no games, no more IETF hidden-agenda meetings. This private communications to the chair of a Global Standards Org is an outrage as a corporate entity. It forms a commercial solicitation and MUST be disclosed. Sorry... Todd He wanted to know if the IETF would be willing to require royalty-free commitments for essential patents in standards-track RFCs. I indicated that this was a significant change, and it is difficult to enforce on parties that do not participate in the standards making process. This idea is taking the ideas that Apple suggests in this article even further. > > I would like to see an actual proposal before I commented further. I > suspect that there would be some details here.... > > Regards > Marshall > >>(Continue reading)
> From: todd glassey <tglassey <at> earthlink.net> > Date: February 9, 2012 2:01:17 PM EST > To: Marshall Eubanks <marshall.eubanks <at> gmail.com> > Cc: Russ Housley <housley <at> vigilsec.com>, ipr-wg <at> ietf.org > Subject: Re: ETSI patent licence rules > > On 2/9/2012 10:51 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Russ Housley <housley <at> vigilsec.com> wrote: >>> I find this very interesting. >>> >>> I have recently been approached by the in-house counsel from a very large vendor. > > We need the name of the vendor here Russ... and now - no delays, no > games, no more IETF hidden-agenda meetings. > > This private communications to the chair of a Global Standards Org is an > outrage as a corporate entity. It forms a commercial solicitation and > MUST be disclosed. > > Sorry... > > Todd > > He wanted to know if the IETF would be willing to require royalty-free > commitments for essential patents in standards-track RFCs. I indicated > that this was a significant change, and it is difficult to enforce on > parties that do not participate in the standards making process. This > idea is taking the ideas that Apple suggests in this article even further. I do not agree with your assessment of the situation.(Continue reading)
On 2/9/2012 10:54 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > > Russ, > > (strictly personal opinion...) > > Remember the RSA issue and a few other things that contributed > to shaping IETF's current policy, I would be opposed to a change > that prevented something from moving forward on the standards > track unless it came with some particular form of license or > license commitment. I think the ability of a WG to accept a > restricted/ encumbered technology if it sees the issue as > important and the technology as clearly superior to the > alternatives is one of our strengths. The problem comes in the intentional design of technology which uses an encumbered technology base or relies on materials which the IETF knows are controlled and which will not be licensed under IETF acceptable terms. > > On the other hand, I would see no problem and some advantages to > the IETF saying "we will permit any license you like as long as > you clearly disclose it but strongly prefer a royalty-free > commitment for any essential patent(s) for anything on the > standards track". If the IESG then decided to institutionalize > that preference by telling WGs that they would be required to > give a lot of scrutiny to anything more restrictive than that, I > wouldn't see that as a problem either. > > All of that said, and with due respect to the Apple campaign, I(Continue reading)
RSS Feed23 | |
|---|---|
3 | |
2 | |
1 | |
3 | |
2 | |
10 | |
4 | |
1 | |
68 | |
35 | |
1 | |
4 | |
1 | |
7 | |
15 | |
5 | |
8 | |
30 | |
12 | |
6 | |
3 | |
15 | |
21 | |
71 | |
43 | |
128 | |
37 | |
1 | |
21 | |
28 | |
39 | |
22 | |
101 | |
139 | |
71 | |
8 | |
27 | |
85 | |
30 | |
54 | |
73 | |
135 | |
6 | |
113 | |
85 | |
32 | |
80 | |
6 | |
43 | |
124 | |
111 | |
117 | |
115 | |
177 | |
54 | |
166 | |
72 | |
266 | |
131 | |
1 | |
28 | |
1 | |
20 | |
194 | |
86 | |
113 | |
21 | |
18 | |
10 | |
1 | |
3 | |
4 | |
31 | |
29 | |
6 | |
10 | |
4 | |
41 | |
2 | |
9 | |
157 | |
91 | |
282 | |
100 | |
230 | |
481 | |
347 | |
4 | |
19 | |
133 | |
44 | |
9 | |
3 | |
55 | |
51 |
