Subject: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:47:46 +0000

in <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/21/802_11n_patent_threat/>, we see:

		Letters of Assurance are requested from all parties
		holding patents which may be applicable to any IEEE
		standard. Basically they state that the patent owner
		won't sue anyone for implementing the standard.  ...

i was thinking, what a great policy.  why doesn't IETF have one like it?

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Chris Elliott <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:03:31 -0400 (EDT)

You mean like:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/about/

?

Chris.

-- 
Chris Elliott  CCIE# 2013       |         |
Customer Diagnostic Engineer   |||       |||
RTP, NC, USA                  |||||     |||||
919-392-2146              .:|||||||||:|||||||||:.
[email-masked]        c i s c o S y s t e m s

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:05:49 -0700

>i was thinking, what a great policy.  why doesn't IETF have one like it?

May I point you to the IPR mailing list, where discussions of this nature
are in scope?  [email-masked], usual protocol for joining....

				regards,
					Ted Hardie

---

From: "Clint Chaplin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:13:57 -0700

Were it that easy.

An IEEE LoA can be RAND, can be RANDZ, or can state that the company
won't RAND nor RANDZ.

-- 
Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
Principal Engineer
Corporate Standardization (US)
SISA

---

From: "Clint Chaplin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:13:57 -0700

Were it that easy.

---

From: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:11:40 -0400

Why would you believe that a representation in the press on an issue as
complex as this is at all accurate?

That quote is not a correct or complete description of IEEE LoAs. First
off, the IEEE-SA can request all it wants but has no power to require
anything of parties who are not part of the IEEE-SA process. Second, a
Letter of Assurance can say a variety of things such as (1) the
potentially essential patent won't be enforced against anyone who
implements the standard, (2) the patent will be licensed on a RAND basis
(reasonable and non-discriminatory royalties), or (3) the patent holder
reserves the right to charge whatever it feels like on whatever basis it
wants.

The LoA form is here: http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/loa.pdf.
The IEEE-SA Patent Policy slide set is here:
http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt.
An IEEE-SA Patent Policy FAQ is here:
http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/faq.pdf.

Donald

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Vixie [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 1:48 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?

in <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/21/802_11n_patent_threat/>, we
see:

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailmaorg; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:11:46 -0400
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:11:40 -0400
From: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?

Why would you believe that a representation in the press on an issue as
complex as this is at all accurate?

That quote is not a correct or complete description of IEEE LoAs. First
off, the IEEE-SA can request all it wants but has no power to require
anything of parties who are not part of the IEEE-SA process. Second, a
Letter of Assurance can say a variety of things such as (1) the
potentially essential patent won't be enforced against anyone who
implements the standard, (2) the patent will be licensed on a RAND basis
(reasonable and non-discriminatory royalties), or (3) the patent holder
reserves the right to charge whatever it feels like on whatever basis it
wants.

The LoA form is here: http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/loa.pdf.
The IEEE-SA Patent Policy slide set is here:
http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt.
An IEEE-SA Patent Policy FAQ is here:
http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/faq.pdf.

Donald

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Vixie [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 1:48 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?

in <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/21/802_11n_patent_threat/>, we
see:

n/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:25:07 +0000

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/about/

no, i was thinking of the promise not to sue, rather than the promise to
disclose the possibility of suing.

---

From: Florian Weimer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:21:29 +0200

> i was thinking, what a great policy.  why doesn't IETF have one like it?

Perhaps because IEEE hasn't got anything like that, either?

The IEEE has got a very expansive patent policy:

| 7.14 Patent Rights of Employed Engineer Inventors
|
| In order to promote the progress of electrical arts and sciences, it
| is IEEE policy to encourage the establishment of appropriate
| incentive systems for the development and disclosure of
| inventions. Implementation of this policy may include actions
| directed toward the improvement and revitalization of patent laws to
| extend protection of inventions in newer fields of technology not
| currently covered, and greater incentives to government contractors
| for the commercial utilization of inventions resulting from
| government support, and improving laws to provide equitable
| distribution of rights between employed inventors and their
| employers, as well as to promote equitable standard patent
| pre-assignment agreements.

The spelled-out policy for standards is available under:

<http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sect6-7.html>

I don't think it's fundamentally different from the IETF policy (that
is, RAND is acceptable).

---

From: Chris Elliott <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:33:01 -0400 (EDT)

You mean like:

Cisco is the owner of US published patent applications 20050154872 and 
20050154873 and one or more pending unpublished patent applications 
relating to the subject matter of "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Session 
Resumption without Server Side State" 
<draft-salowey-tls-rfc4507bis-01.txt>.

If technology in this document is included in a standard adopted by IETF 
and any claims of any Cisco patents are necessary for practicing the 
standard, any party will have the right to use any such patent claims 
under reasonable, non-discriminatory terms, with reciprocity, to implement 
and fully comply with the standard.

The reasonable non-discriminatory terms are:

If this standard is adopted, Cisco will not assert any patents owned or 
controlled by Cisco against any party for making, using, selling, 
importing or offering for sale a product that implements the standard, 
provided, however that Cisco retains the right to assert its patents 
(including the right to claim past royalties) against any party that 
asserts a patent it owns or controls (either directly or indirectly) 
against Cisco or any of Cisco's affiliates or successors in title or 
against any products of Cisco or any products of any of Cisco's affiliates 
either alone or in combination with other products; and Cisco retains the 
right to assert its patents against any product or portion thereof that is 
not necessary for compliance with the standard.

Royalty-bearing licenses will be available to anyone who prefers that 
option.

-----

This is from one of Cisco's IPR disclosures...the first I found. Seems 
pretty clear (for legal-ese) to me.

Chris.

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:40:49 +0000

> ...
> standard, any party will have the right to use any such patent claims under
> reasonable, non-discriminatory terms, with reciprocity, to implement and
> fully comply with the standard.
> 
> ...

those terms seem reasonable to me.  theoretically, what if someone said
that their "reasonable nondiscrimintatory terms" were GPL?  would IETF agree
that these terms were reasonable and nondiscriminatory?  (i wouldn't.)

> pretty clear (for legal-ese) to me.

very clear, very well done, but if anything it adds to my list of questions
rather than subtracting from that, since it begs the question, what is the
objective definition of "reasonable and nondiscriminatory"?

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:51:45 -0700

On Sep 25, 2007, at 11:21 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:

> [...]

Actually, per RFC 3978 and friends, the IETF does not even require a  
RAND commitment.  There have recently been cases where RFCs have been  
issued with known patents that are not offered under RAND terms.   
It's up to the WG and IETF consensus to decide whether I-Ds including  
such encumbered technology can become RFCs (and what class of RFCs).

Stephan

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:20:03 +0000

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:47:46 +0000

> i was thinking, what a great policy.  why doesn't IETF have one like
Because the strong consensus of the IPR WG a few years ago was to keep
the current policy.  As Ted Hardie pointed out, that group's mailing
list is the correct place to raise this issue -- but frankly, I don't
think the consensus has changed since the issue was last considered.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:22:58 -0400

On 25 Sep 2007 at 18:40 +0000, Paul Vixie allegedly wrote:
> very clear, very well done, but if anything it adds to my list of
> questions rather than subtracting from that, since it begs the
> question, what is the objective definition of "reasonable and
> nondiscriminatory"?

The more a disclosure clarifies that, the more the WGs like it.

On 25 Sep 2007 at 11:51 -0700, Stephan Wenger allegedly wrote:
> RAND commitment.  There have recently been cases where RFCs have
> been issued with known patents that are not offered under RAND
> terms.  It's up to the WG and IETF consensus to decide whether I-Ds
> including such encumbered technology can become RFCs (and what class
> of RFCs).

Right.

I'm with Ted ... let's take this over to ipr-wg.

Scott

---

From: Florian Weimer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:41:46 +0200

> objective definition of "reasonable and nondiscriminatory"?

Any terms that prevent courts from granting compulsory patent licenses
(in applicable jurisdictions)?

I'm sure this is as objective as you can get. 8-)

---

From: "Lawrence Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:32:21 -0700

Stephan Wenger wrote:
> issued with known patents that are not offered under RAND terms.  It's 
> up to the WG and IETF consensus to decide whether I-Ds including such 
> encumbered technology can become RFCs (and what class of RFCs).

> I'm with Ted ... let's take this over to ipr-wg.

I respectfully disagree with Steven Bellovin and Scott Brim, and ask that we
NOT turn this issue back to the IPR-WG unless and until its charter is
revised to allow it to *completely revise* IETF's IPR policies with respect
to patents. 

This issue was "strangled in committee" the last time the IPR-WG addressed
RAND and other IPR policies for industry standards, with the WG leaders
insisting (erroneously in my opinion) that there was consensus NOT to
address the problems that the current IETF patent polices pose for open
source *and* proprietary implementations of supposedly open standards.

However it has to be done, I ask that IETF not let that burial happen again.
Let's first charter the IPR-WG to completely reconsider the IETF patent
policy in light of new software industry expectations, and so that we get
rid of the inadequate RAND (and even non-RAND) IETF IPR policies that
currently exist. 

/Larry Rosen

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243
Skype: LawrenceRosen
Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and 
                Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice Hall 2004)

> From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 12:20 PM
> To: Paul Vixie
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?
>

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:02:51 +0200

> revised to allow it to *completely revise* IETF's IPR policies with respect

I agree.  The current IPR WG charter contains:

   The WG has also discussed the possibility of changing the IETF's
   patent policy, but did not detect a consensus for doing so.

Moving this discussion to the IPR WG list would be outside of the WG's
charter, and discussions would likely be killed.

I support re-chartering of the IPR WG to discuss a IETF-wide patent
policy.

> rid of the inadequate RAND (and even non-RAND) IETF IPR policies that

Hear, hear.  I believe a significant part of the IETF community would
agree with Paul Vixie that something similar to what the IEEE have would
be very useful for the IETF community as well.  When I read the article
that was linked, I had the same reaction as Vixie.

The best would be if all standards track documents were published under
a similar policy as the IEEE appear to have: any patent holders must
promise not to sue over implementation.

Another approach that would not require fundamental changes in the IETF
would be to introduce a new classification of standards: one class where
the IETF applies a policy similar to the IEEE and one class where the
policy is not applied, and it would permit publishing of
patent-encumbered technologies.

/Simon

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:06:14 +0200

Chris Elliott wrote:
> relating to the subject matter of "Transport Layer Security (TLS) 
> Session Resumption without Server Side State" 
> If technology in this document is included in a standard adopted by 
> IETF and any claims of any Cisco patents are necessary for practicing 
> the standard, any party will have the right to use any such patent 
> claims under reasonable, non-discriminatory terms, with reciprocity, 
> to implement and fully comply with the standard.
>
> If this standard is adopted, Cisco will not assert any patents owned 
> or controlled by Cisco against any party for making, using, selling, 
> against any products of Cisco or any products of any of Cisco's 
> affiliates either alone or in combination with other products; and 
> Cisco retains the right to assert its patents against any product or 
> portion thereof that is not necessary for compliance with the standard.
>
Note that if:

  - Company A has a patent on nanosecond gate opening
  - Company A has issued the claim above, in conjunction with an IETF 
standard
  - Company B has a patent on the application of slow-drying oil paint
  - Company A paints their house with such an oil paint
  - Company B asserts their patent on slow-drying oil paint against 
company A

then company B will automatically be the target for an assertion of the 
nanosecond patent against all its uses of that patent, past, present and 
future, within or outside the scope of the relevant IETF standard.

It's a blanket license for use of the technology by any company that 
doesn't hold a patent, but it's definitely not a "no strings attached" 
policy.

(that said, it is a LOT better than a "we know something, but we're not 
telling" policy....)

                      Harald

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:51:25 +0000

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:32:21 -0700
"Lawrence Rosen" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 
> I respectfully disagree with Steven Bellovin and Scott Brim, and ask
> that we NOT turn this issue back to the IPR-WG unless and until its
> charter is revised to allow it to *completely revise* IETF's IPR
> policies with respect to patents. 
> 
> This issue was "strangled in committee" the last time the IPR-WG
> addressed RAND and other IPR policies for industry standards, with
> the WG leaders insisting (erroneously in my opinion) that there was
> consensus NOT to address the problems that the current IETF patent
> polices pose for open source *and* proprietary implementations of
> supposedly open standards.
> 
> However it has to be done, I ask that IETF not let that burial happen
> again. Let's first charter the IPR-WG to completely reconsider the
> IETF patent policy in light of new software industry expectations,
> and so that we get rid of the inadequate RAND (and even non-RAND)
> IETF IPR policies that currently exist. 
> 
>
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled
to their own facts."  -- (U.S.) Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

The original charter of the IPR working group was to clarify the IETF's
patent documents.  As chair, I promised the WG that once those
documents were finished, we'd discuss rechartering.  That happened, and
went on for many months.  You're welcome to consult the mailing list
archives for that discussion.

At the Atlanta IETF (November 2002), the WG meeting was polled.
According to the minutes
(http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/02nov/130.htm), there was no
consensus to recharter.

The discussion continued; at the next IETF (San Francisco, March 2003),
the room was polled again.  The minutes
(http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/03mar/132.htm) say "fairly clear
consensus against rechartering."

Per IETF procedures, I took the matter to the mailing list; see
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/current/msg00962.html
I did my level best to run an open, honest poll.  I announced the
result two weeks later:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/current/msg01195.html
You're welcome to consult the archives yourself to verify my count --
per my first note, I asked (and took technical measures to ensure) that
votes were public.

The issue was very widely discussed during the process, both within the
IPR WG and elsewhere.  It was covered in the trade press; see, for
example,
http://www.news.com/Free-software-gadfly-takes-on-Net-group/2100-1001_3-971124.html
Note this quote, btw:

	Judging by an informal poll at the group's Atlanta meeting,
	that movement isn't gaining any momentum with the current
	membership, according to both Perens and the group's chair,
	Steve Bellovin.

Bruce Perens is a well-known open source activist who spoke quite
often on the subject in the WG.  The final result was described at
http://www.news.com/Standards-group-beats-back-patent-foes/2100-1013_3-996351.html

To summarize: I did my level best to ensure a fair consensus call.  I
stand by my statement then that the consensus of the group was against
rechartering.  If you have evidence to the contrary, I think you should
produce it.  I also assert -- though this is more of an opinion -- that
given the structure of the IETF, where anyone could participate in any
WG meeting, the notion of "strangling in committee" a major issue
simply doesn't apply.  In a legislative body, with a fixed set of
voting members, that can happen; I don't think it can happen in the
IETF unless there's a complete absence of publicity -- and that
certainly wasn't the case here.

Now -- it's been 4.5 years since that consensus call, and perhaps the
world and the IETF have changed enough since then that it's worth
reopening the question.  I doubt it, but my involvement with the IETF
over the last three years has been much less than it was before that.
(And I'm no longer the co-chair of the IPR WG, so any future efforts
wouldn't be my problem.)  That said, the IETF does not operate as a
committee of the whole; it's just too big.  Any proposed policy change
will have to be taken up by *some* WG, whether the current IPR WG or a
new one.  If you think a new effort might be fruitful, I suggest you
discuss how to proceed with Russ Housley, the IETF chair and General
AD, and Harald Alvestrand, the current IPR WG chair.  You may be right
about the present and the future -- but let's not try to rewrite the
past.

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:35:44 -0700

>rid of the inadequate RAND (and even non-RAND) IETF IPR policies that

If you want the IETF to do that, please put together a page listing 
those new software industry expectations. I have been following the 
patent issues (but not the IPR WG) for many years, and I don't see 
much difference now from five years ago, other than more trolls with 
more money. There isn't even much anger about the new rich trolls, it 
seems.

>that was linked, I had the same reaction as Vixie.

Did you read the rest of the thread after that? Many people pointed 
out that the article was wrong with respect to what the IEEE's rules 
are. Are you disputing what those people said? If so, having some 
exact wording and implementation experience from the IEEE would be 
very useful for us to decide if we want to follow their model.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:41:00 -0400

> doesn't hold a patent, but it's definitely not a "no strings attached" 

Harald, <sigh> this again.

  - It's a blanket statement for anyone, including those who have
    patents, who agree not to assert them.  No license required.

  - You can sue any time you like.  All that happens is that this
    agreement disappears.  See the text.

  - If you don't want to be bound by a non-assertion agreement, you
    can get a license right at the very beginning.  Some people do opt
    for this.  If you have a problem with getting license-free use in
    return for not suing, you could too.

So what are you missing?  All you "lose" is the ability to use the
technology license-free AND sue the holder at the same time.

This promotes sharing of technology and joint development of the
Internet.  The only people who lose here are the patent parasites who
make a living off lawsuits, and those who insist that technology be
patent-free without actually looking at the terms of use.

Scott

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:06:50 +1200

normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto; =
-khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; =
-apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; =
white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><div =
style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; =
margin-left: 0px; ">"One must act on what has not yet =
happened."</div><div style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; =
margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">--Lao Tzu</div><div>web: <a =
href=3D"http://www.let.de">http://www.let.de</a></div><div>.local <a =
href=3D"http://stattfernsehen.com">http://stattfernsehen.com</a></div><div=
><br></div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"></span></span></span></span></span></s=
pan></span></span></span></span></span> </div><br></body></html>=

--Apple-Mail-12--70652445--

--===============1821193195==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

--===============1821193195==--

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:06:50 +1200

On 2007-09-27 03:35, Paul Hoffman wrote:
...
> Did you read the rest of the thread after that? Many people pointed out 
> that the article was wrong with respect to what the IEEE's rules are. 
> Are you disputing what those people said? If so, having some exact 
> wording and implementation experience from the IEEE would be very useful 
> for us to decide if we want to follow their model.

Indeed. And for those who did read the IEEE's set of options carefully
(http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/loa.pdf),
the only major difference from the IETF's set of options is that
IEEE now allows a RAND disclosure to include a maximum financial level
that would be charged for royalties, i.e. allows the disclosure to
define the "reasonable" in "RAND" in dollar amounts. So RAND remains
an acceptable option in the IEEE rules, as it is in the IETF rules,
but with the added option.

I believe that the IEEE, and one or two other SDOs that allow such a
financial disclosure, went through very careful legal steps to ensure
that their rules were unlikely to break anti-trust laws.

I also believe that the IEEE has a range of options including RAND
for the same reason the IETF does - there are a lot of players
in the standards game who insist on having this option available.
I don't see any realistic chance of the IETF consensus on this
changing, much as I would like all standards to be royalty-free.

(For those who haven't noticed, I recently changed employers.
Bizarrely, that hasn't changed my opinion.)

Regards
    Brian Carpenter
    University of Auckland

etf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:[email-masked]>
List-Help: <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: [email-masked]

On 2007-09-27 03:35, Paul Hoffman wrote:
...
> Did you read the rest of the thread after that? Many people pointed out 
> that the article was wrong with respect to what the IEEE's rules are. 
> Are you disputing what those people said? If so, having some exact 
> wording and implementation experience from the IEEE would be very useful 
> for us to decide if we want to follow their model.

Indeed. And for those who did read the IEEE's set of options carefully
(http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/loa.pdf),
the only major difference from the IETF's set of options is that
IEEE now allows a RAND disclosure to include a maximum financial level
that would be charged for royalties, i.e. allows the disclosure to
define the "reasonable" in "RAND" in dollar amounts. So RAND remains
an acceptable option in the IEEE rules, as it is in the IETF rules,
but with the added option.

I believe that the IEEE, and one or two other SDOs that allow such a
financial disclosure, went through very careful legal steps to ensure
that their rules were unlikely to break anti-trust laws.

I also believe that the IEEE has a range of options including RAND
for the same reason the IETF does - there are a lot of players
in the standards game who insist on having this option available.
I don't see any realistic chance of the IETF consensus on this
changing, much as I would like all standards to be royalty-free.

(For those who haven't noticed, I recently changed employers.
Bizarrely, that hasn't changed my opinion.)

Regards
    Brian Carpenter
    University of Auckland

---

From: Marc Manthey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 00:54:41 +0200

good evening ,

there was an intersting statement a while ago in the apple streaming  
list that i like to share:
<--->
 > If you use a technique covered by a patent for your own, private
 > use, you are not obliged to pay royalty fees.
 > --> if you compile sources and build an executable you can then use
 > them without problems for your own.
 > Or, if you read a patent for a milk shaker and you built it on  
your own
 > according to the patent and use it only by yourself , do it.
 > This is an exception in the worldwide laws agreed by the WIPO.
 >(research & development and private use are the exceptions agreed  
in the acts.)

 >If I start selling milk shakes made with the patented milk shaker  
made on my own (or distribute video encoded using an algorithm  
covered by patents, but with >a freely available encoder), do I have  
to pay royalties?

 >I believe I do ... but maybe not under the same conditions as if I  
wanted to sell the milk shaker itself or the compiled encoder?
 > You do not have to pay royalties for the milk shake itself,  
except, the receipe to produce this milk shake is covered by a patent.

 >Like video bitstreams. You can encode MPEG-4 video bitstreams only  
with mechanisms covered by a patent.
 >If you encode for yourself, nobody matters. If you _use_ them in a  
commercial way, e.g. _distribute_ them, you are _using_
 >patents. For the usage of a patent you need a license. Even if it  
is royalty free like H.263, you have a license.
 >(Same in open source. You have a license to distribute the _source_  
and sometimes the binary. Even if you do not pay anything.)

 >So, of course all companies selling products covered by patents  
have to get a license and have to pay royalties sometimes.

 >Another Intelectual Property Right (IPR) is the copyright and the  
"protection of utility patents".
 >I.e. the form and shape of the Coca Cola bottle.

<--->
just my two cents about patents;)

regards

marc

*back to lurking mode*

> patent-free without actually looking at the terms of use.

-
there's no place like 127.0.0.1
until we found ::1 -- which is even bigger

web: http://www.let.de