Subject: [idn] WALID, Inc. IP Statement

From: "J. Douglas Hawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:01:42 -0700

Gentlemen:

We have received your messages of April 26, one to the WG and the other
from
the WG co-chairs to us suggesting a conference call.  In view of the
importance of the matter, we submit this response to clarify the status
of
our considerations.

We are seriously considering the WG's concerns and suggestions with
respect
to our IPR statement, although our statement was virtually identical to
many
other IPR statements that have been posted on the IETF site, including
statements submitted by companies such as IBM, Sun Microsystems, Lucent,
Fujitsu, Cisco, EMC and many others including some of our competitors.

We are aware of and sensitive to the IETF's considerations, including
the
potential impediment to the standards-setting process that may be
presented
by such statements and IPR claims in general.

WALID, Inc. is genuinely committed to finding a solution that will
enable
the WG to fulfill its standards-setting objective of selecting the best
available technology for the RFC, yet at the same time we have a duty to
act
responsibly with respect to our employees and shareholders. We are
therefore
seeking a solution that will fairly balance the rights and interests of
all
parties, while also taking into account the broader interests of the
Internet community.

As we continue to work toward a solution, we are mindful that some of
the
issues involved, principally certain legal and policy considerations,
may go
beyond the IETF's technical standards-setting function.  Consequently,
we
require some additional time to complete our assessment, sort through
the
alternatives and identify an optimum solution.

Regards,
J. Douglas Hawkins
WALID, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Blanchet [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 10:14 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: idn wg

On March 20th, the ietf idn wg co-chairs sent you a request for some
possible new IP statement from Walid inc. regarding the 6,182,148
patent.
On April 13th, you responded by a series of questions that were answered
on
the same day by one of the IDNA author. In order to help the process,
would
a conference call help Walid inc. to understand the IETF process?

Marc & James, co-chairs of the idn wg.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 01:43:19 -0700

At 12:01 AM 4/28/2001, J. Douglas Hawkins wrote:
>WALID, Inc. is genuinely committed to finding a solution that will enable
>available technology for the RFC, yet at the same time we have a duty to act
>responsibly with respect to our employees and shareholders. We are therefore
>seeking a solution that will fairly balance the rights and interests of all

1.  Walid is taking rather a long time to resolve this matter, in spite of 
the periodic public statements about its intentions.  Walid should have had 
a clear and constructive proposal at the last IETF meeting, but did 
not.  We are now some time down the path and are hearing more promises of 
intent, but not seeing anything concrete.

2.  The above paragraph from Walid makes clear that Walid seeks to profit 
from license fees.  Whether they are equitably applied, or not, is 
irrelevant. "...responsibility to ... shareholders" is not language used 
for a defensive patent.  It is used for the bottom line.

3.  The working group, therefore, either simply caves in, if it believes 
there are no alternatives, or it finds an alternative engineering path 
around the patent.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 08:07:27 -0700

At 7:32 AM -0400 4/26/01, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>May 01 WG decision on IDN Protocol

At 12:01 AM -0700 4/28/01, J. Douglas Hawkins wrote:
>  Consequently,

It is unreasonable for a company like WALID to try to stop the WG 
process because the company says it need months to come to an 
internal decision about how best to use its own IPR.

The WG should decide before Tuesday what it wants to do about the 
protocol given WALID's previous actions, inactions, and this current 
statement.

At 1:43 AM -0700 4/28/01, Dave Crocker wrote:
>3.  The working group, therefore, either simply caves in, if it 
>believes there are no alternatives, or it finds an alternative 
>engineering path around the patent.

There is a third option that many people have discussed in the past 
few months: go with IDNA and assume that the WALID patent will be 
invalidated, at least on the parts that affect IDNA. There are two 
threads here:

a) Some people feel that the WALID patent in fact doesn't actually 
affect IDNA, so if WALID attempts to enforce it, they will be 
rejected by the courts.

b) Some people feel that most or all of the patent itself will be 
overturned because of prior art, some of which is listed in the 
patent itself.

Choosing either side of this third option is a risk whose outcome is 
based on the US legal system, which is notoriously hard to predict 
(even harder to predict than the IETF!). The WG might choose to take 
this risk.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 11:36:14 -0400

Paul,

While I don't disagree (or agree) with any proposed course of action
(yet), I missed the controlling issue which requires a working group 
process event, e.g., a decision, on or before a date, e.g., Tuesday.

> protocol given WALID's previous actions, inactions, and this current 

Cheers,
Eric

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 08:56:58 -0700

>process event, e.g., a decision, on or before a date, e.g., Tuesday.

We need a deadline to decide how the WG is going to move forwards.

WALID has had plenty of time to consider its options. At the 
Minneapolis meeting, folks from WALID agreed to dates that seemed 
reasonable to all, but then missed them without comment. In WALID's 
latest letter, they say the require more time, but do not say why, 
nor do they say why they missed the previously-agreed to deadlines, 
nor do they say what value the WG would get from giving them more 
time.

Without some information about why WALID needs more time, I think the 
WG should go ahead on its schedule. If the WG decides not to go with 
IDNA because of the WALID patent and their claims about it, the WG 
needs time to think about which alternative it wants to persue, if 
any. Letting WALID control that debate seems silly.

--Paul Hoffman, Director

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 12:28:28 -0400

Paul,

Please don't take this the wrong way, but your impatience (or mine) are
not the controlling issue which requires a working group process event
to remedy.

Eric

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 10:04:54 -0700

At 08:07 AM 4/28/2001, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
>a) Some people feel that the WALID patent in fact doesn't actually affect 
>IDNA, so if WALID attempts to enforce it, they will be rejected by the courts.
>
>overturned because of prior art, some of which is listed in the patent itself.

The idealist in me thoroughly supports such a line of thinking and choice.

The pragmatist in me has now had a couple of years doing some expert 
witness work, responding to infringement suits for patents that I feel were 
very, very poor.

The pragmatist learned that a minimal defense effort costs US$1-2M, and 
takes 1-2 years, and has highly unpredictable outcomes.  For EACH defendant.

I have asked some patent attorneys about having a group of companies band 
together and was told that that never works.  The participants ultimately 
individually choose short-term individual self-interest and the force of an 
organized group is lost.

I do not know enough about patent processes to know what it takes to get 
the US Patent Office to overturn an issued patent, but am under the 
impression it is nearly impossible.

The presence of a patent confuses the market place.  A path which relies on 
"disarming" the patent is sure to be very expensive and very slow.  That 
will ensure long-term confusion in the market place.  A builder of products 
is not going to want to build a product that has such confusing 
intellectual property encumbrances.

All of this makes for exactly the WRONG circumstance, especially given the 
urgency for an operational IDNS solution.

I believe that the intention behind patenting is entirely reasonable and 
appropriate.  Serious effort that produces truly creative and useful 
technologies should accrue special rights to the inventor.

However, the US patent process is thoroughly screwed up, both as a core 
concept and as a procedure.  The core concept is that the US patent office 
is competent to "validate" claims of creativity and utility.  The procedure 
is that they do the validation badly.  However this situation is not going 
to change anytime soon, so we need to work within the current reality.

That means either accepting a specification that is encumbered by the Walid 
patent, or finding a way around it.

The IETF has a reasonable base of experience with companies that take a 
truly constructive approach towards working with the IETF process.  We have 
enough experience to be able to tell when a situation is NOT developing in 
a truly constructive fashion.  In my opinion we are, unfortunately, in such 
a non-constructive situation, and my guess is that it will improve.

Hence:  If there is any practical choice that avoid the Walid patent, we 
should embrace it.  Quickly and strongly.

d/

----------

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 09:58:52 -0700

At 10:04 AM -0700 4/28/01, Dave Crocker wrote:
>witness work, responding to infringement suits for patents that I 
>feel were very, very poor.

Speaking as an individual, not as a document author, I fully agree 
with Dave's assesment. I brought up the other options to to say that 
they were what the WG should do, but to say what many people had been 
speaking about off the list.

--Paul Hoffman, Director