Subject: Re: Call for volunteers to discuss IETF patent policy with Richard Stallman

From: Richard M Stallman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:08:16 -0500

I cannot post anything in a group whose name uses the term
"intellectual property" without saying first that I think it is a
mistake to make any statement using that term.  It encourages
overgeneralization, and is too broad to be of use in meaningful
statements.  See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html for more
explanation.

The issue here concerns patents and only patents.  To use the term
"intellectual property" in discussing it would confuse the issue by
bringing in other disparate laws.

    It is unreasonable to ban all patents, since patents may be used 
    defensively in accordance with LPF principles and statements. It is also 
    possible that a patented technology might be so fundamental, that a 
    standard _must_ be approved no matter the cost.

A patented standard for software is worse than no standard, because it
functions to augment the patent holder's stranglehold over society.
What everyone ought to do is resist it.

As long as the IETF allows patented standards for software, anyone can
argue about any proposed patented standard that it important enough to
excuse the patent.  Others can argue that it is not, but since that is
a question of judgment, the conclusion is never inevitable.  So the
risk is always broader than it might appear.

I am looking for people who would like to join in trying to change
this policy.  I'll discuss it further with those who are interested.

---

From: TSG <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 11:02:00 -0800

Richard M Stallman wrote:
> mistake to make any statement using that term.  

> It encourages
> statements.  
No, its supposed to be a catchall "for processes which define issues of 
intellectual property law which would impact a open collaboration 
process for developing technology standards pertaining to networking and 
the operations of the standards process"... one which by the way relies 
on corporate and academic sponsorship.
> See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html for more
> explanation.
>
> The issue here concerns patents and only patents.  
Patents are a part of the Intellectual Property Framework that enables 
the Trade Agreements between the populace of this planet so what you are 
talking about is a process that intentionally ignores or creates a 
process to subvert the rule of law.
> To use the term
I am sorry - this statement is not only biased its just plain wrong. The 
stranglehold painted in this comment is only if the IETF refuses to 
become a truly open standards process so that there can be any number of 
standards issued for any area. Othewrwise the exclusivity of an IETF 
standard becomes a tactical and strategic weapon. One which no one 
should have including the FSF itself.

Oh and Richard - the 454 Shotwell facility was better used IMO as the 
School of Holography

:-)

http://www.jfairstein.com/SOH.html

> excuse the patent.  
"Excuse the patent"?  Ahahahahah - see what I mean. This isnt about 
being open its a lobbyist effort to kill off patents by excluding 
patented IP from the IETF standards process.
> Others can argue that it is not, but since that is
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>
>

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:12:19 -0500

On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:08:16 -0500

> bringing in other disparate laws.

Without debating your point about the terminology, the IPR working
group was concerned with copyright as well. 

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