Subject: [MMUSIC] IPR on the ICE draft

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 17:40:22 +0100

[Not as chair]

I note that the IETF has received three IPR disclosures relating to  
the ICE draft:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?ipr_id=671
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?ipr_id=672
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?ipr_id=673

These disclosures list three US patent applications from Tandberg  
Telecom, and offer the same licensing terms for each:

   The Patent Holder is prepare to grant - on the basis of reciprocity
   for the above IETF specification - a licence to an unrestricted  
number
   of applicants on a worldwide, non-discriminatory basis and on  
reasonable
   term and conditions to make, use and sell implementations of the  
above
   IETF specification. Negotiations are left to the parties  
concerned, and
   are performed outside the IETF.

   As used herein, the word "reciprocity" means that the Patent Holder
   shall only be required to license any prospective licencee if such
   prospective licensee will commit to license its essential patent(s)
   or essential patent claim(s) for implementation of any IETF  
specification
   for free under reasonable terms and conditions.

I find these terms problematic, since they appear to effectively  
prohibit open source implementations of ICE. In particular, there are  
many popular open source projects that lack the resources to conduct  
legal negotiations for an IPR license, and there is no guarantee that  
a royalty free license will be available at the conclusion to such  
negotiations.

Given the importance of ICE to widespread and interoperable  
deployment of VoIP applications, such a restriction on free  
implementation is disturbing.

Colin

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

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 13:06:53 -0600

Colin Perkins wrote:
> [Not as chair]
> 
> I note that the IETF has received three IPR disclosures relating to the
> ICE draft:
> 
>   for the above IETF specification - a licence to an unrestricted number
>   of applicants on a worldwide, non-discriminatory basis and on reasonable
>   term and conditions to make, use and sell implementations of the above
>   IETF specification. Negotiations are left to the parties concerned, and
>   or essential patent claim(s) for implementation of any IETF specification
> legal negotiations for an IPR license, and there is no guarantee that a
> royalty free license will be available at the conclusion to such
> negotiations.

I wonder: is a license required only if a party has patents or patent
claims related to implementation of IETF specifications? I doubt that
any open-source projects fall into that category. If Tandberg were to
clarify the wording of its IPR disclosures in this regard, perhaps the
concern would evaporate.

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation
http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 07:03:09 -0700

It's a very interesting quesiton to ask what part of ICE does not  
have prior art. The online gaming people have been doing this stuff  
for a long time.

On May 4, 2006, at 9:40 AM, Colin Perkins wrote:

> prohibit open source implementations of ICE. In particular, there  
> are many popular open source projects that lack the resources to  
> conduct legal negotiations for an IPR license, and there is no  
> guarantee that a royalty free license will be available at the  
> conclusion to such negotiations.
>

---

From: "Michael Slavitch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 21:55:53 -0400

I agree.  I seem to recall hacker/gamers doing such game modifications way
back in the early 1990's just as colleges began to put in NAT firewalls and
gateways to prevent just such bandwidth hogs and students worked around
them.  *Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.*

--
Michael Slavitch
Ottawa, Ontario Canada

"Yet another P2PSIP Henchman"
_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

---

From: "Michael Slavitch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 15:33:27 -0400

The IETF may have a say in how patents turn out.  More here:

http://dotank.nyls.edu/communitypatent/about.html

"The patent system needs our help. The United States Patent Office is
actively seeking ways to bring greater expertise to bear on the review of
patent applications and ensure that only worthwhile inventions receive the
patent monopoly. Currently, underpaid and overwhelmed examiners struggle
under the backlog of applications. Under pressure to expedite review,
patents for unmerited inventions are approved.

Sponsored by IBM, the Community Patent Project seeks to create a peer review
system for patents that exploits network technology to enable innovation
experts to inform the patent examination procedure. In every field of
scientific endeavor, peer review is a critical quality control mechanism to
improve innovation. Throughout the public sector both peer review and
citizen consultation are either legally mandated or practiced as a way to
inform policymaking.
The Community Patent Project aims to design and pilot an online system for
peer review of patents. The Community Patent system will support a network
of experts to advise the Patent Office on prior art as well as to assist
with patentability determinations. By using social software, such as social
reputation, collaborative filtering and information visualization tools, we
can apply the "wisdom of the crowd" – or, more accurately the wisdom of the
experts – to complex social and scientific problems. This could make it
easier to protect the inventor's investment while safeguarding the
marketplace of ideas."

--
Michael Slavitch
Ottawa, Ontario Canada