Subject: [codec] Seperate list for IPR discutions?

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 07:42:10 -0600

Stephan, as our WG technical advisor on topics like this, do you have advice on if we should set up a separate list for people that want to talk about patent issues related to the standards from this WG? From a practical point of view, someone could easily set up a separate list either on the ietf.org servers or not on ietf servers.

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:40:33 -0700

Hi,

Yes, I think a separate mailing list would be an excellent idea.  There is
IMO no danger to the IETF when using an IETF-hosted list.  But, as you
mentioned, there are also other options.  Whatever is the easiest for those
interested in this work.

My preference would be that this list has a subscription process independent
from the subscription to [email-masked].  As the minimum, there must be an
opt-out process.

I would recommend that the maintainers of the list, periodically, make
people on [email-masked] aware of the existence of the list and the ongoing
discussions, in a summarized form.  I also don't mind if suggested design
choices spill over to codec@ietf; after all, this is the list where
technical discussions are being held.  The borderline would be citations of
patent language, including patent numbers and claim language.

Personally, I surely do not want to be involved on this hypothetical new
list.

Stephan

On 10.20.2010 06:42 , "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 
> Stephan, as our WG technical advisor on topics like this, do you have advice
> on if we should set up a separate list for people that want to talk about
> patent issues related to the standards from this WG? From a practical point of
> view, someone could easily set up a separate list either on the ietf.org
> servers or not on ietf servers.

---

From: Stephen Botzko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:03:41 -0400

+1, I'd like to see it handled precisely this way.

I think it provides a good way forward, and allows those of us who do not
want exposure to patent details to continue to participate on the main list.

Stephen Botzko

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>

---

From: Jean-Marc Valin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:27:55 -0400

Hi,

Just to make things clear, I think there's two sets of issues regarding 
IPR. One is discussing the exact terms of IPR disclosure/licensing and the 
other is discussion about patent themselves. I think the former should 
remain on this list. OTOH, I think the latter is (unfortunately) best dealt 
with in private. I don't think there is anything to be gained in discussing 
patent claims in a publicly archived list. I don't think even having that 
on a separate list is a good idea and I'm not interested in participating 
in such a list should it be created.

      Jean-Marc

On 10-10-20 01:03 PM, Stephen Botzko wrote:
> I think it provides a good way forward, and allows those of us who do
> not want exposure to patent details to continue to participate on the
> main list.
>
> Stephen Botzko
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     from the subscription to [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>.  As
>     the minimum, there must be an
>     opt-out process.
>
>     people on [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> aware of the
>     existence of the list and the ongoing
>     On 10.20.2010 06:42 , "[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>"
>     <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>      >
>      > view, someone could easily set up a separate list either on the
>     ietf.org <http://ietf.org>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Stephen Botzko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:42:27 -0400

Stephan's suggestion on the boundary  "citations of patent language,
including patent numbers and claim language" is consistent with your
boundary.  Detailed analysis of proposed work-arounds, would presumably
include patent language.  General discussion of license terms would not.

Since I wouldn't subscribe or otherwise access the new list, it doesn't
matter to me if it is publicly archived or not.

Based on past IETF experience, it is quite difficult to convince posters to
go off-line for a private discussion.  One practical issue is that the folks
who do want to discuss this stuff have no easy way to identify themselves.
I'm thinking that providing the second list might make that easier.  Though
perhaps no one but Christian is willing to talk about patent claims?

Stephen Botzko

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Jean-Marc Valin <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> patent claims in a publicly archived list. I don't think even having that on
> a separate list is a good idea and I'm not interested in participating in
> such a list should it be created.
>
>     Jean-Marc
>
>

---

From: "Christian Hoene" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:56:51 +0200

Sorry guys,

For posting patent related language and number on the mailing list.  As a researcher living and working under the German legal system, I am not subject to the same legal dangers as you. Thus, I was not aware which implications my citations of patents might have to you. 

My apologies again.

Instead a second mailing list, I would suggest to establish a written netiquette (or rule) that nobody on this mailing post any "citations of patent language, including patent numbers and claim language". 

Yes, I promise, I will not do it again.

Christian

---------------------------------------------------------------

Dr.-Ing. Christian Hoene

Interactive Communication Systems (ICS), University of Tübingen 

Sand 13, 72076 Tübingen, Germany, Phone +49 7071 2970532 

http://www.net.uni-tuebingen.de/

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Stephen Botzko
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 7:42 PM
To: Jean-Marc Valin
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [codec] Seperate list for IPR discutions?

Stephan's suggestion on the boundary  "citations of patent language, including patent numbers and claim language" is consistent with your boundary.  Detailed analysis of proposed work-arounds, would presumably include patent language.  General discussion of license terms would not.

Since I wouldn't subscribe or otherwise access the new list, it doesn't matter to me if it is publicly archived or not.  

Based on past IETF experience, it is quite difficult to convince posters to go off-line for a private discussion.  One practical issue is that the folks who do want to discuss this stuff have no easy way to identify themselves.  I'm thinking that providing the second list might make that easier.  Though perhaps no one but Christian is willing to talk about patent claims?

Stephen Botzko

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Jean-Marc Valin <[email-masked]> wrote:

Hi,

Just to make things clear, I think there's two sets of issues regarding IPR. One is discussing the exact terms of IPR disclosure/licensing and the other is discussion about patent themselves. I think the former should remain on this list. OTOH, I think the latter is (unfortunately) best dealt with in private. I don't think there is anything to be gained in discussing patent claims in a publicly archived list. I don't think even having that on a separate list is a good idea and I'm not interested in participating in such a list should it be created.

    Jean-Marc

Stephen Botzko

   Hi,

   Yes, I think a separate mailing list would be an excellent idea.
     There is
   IMO no danger to the IETF when using an IETF-hosted list.  But, as you
   mentioned, there are also other options.  Whatever is the easiest
   for those
   interested in this work.

   My preference would be that this list has a subscription process
   independent

   existence of the list and the ongoing
   discussions, in a summarized form.  I also don't mind if suggested
   design
   choices spill over to codec@ietf; after all, this is the list where
   technical discussions are being held.  The borderline would be
   citations of
   patent language, including patent numbers and claim language.

   Stephan

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:39:56 -0700

Hi Jean-Marc, all,

I have said this before: discussions about commercial terms, if not
conducted very carefully by very knowledgeable people, can have grave
consequences to the individuals involved and their employers.  I bet the
majority of the list participants don't have the authority to discuss
anything like this, which may lead to an unbalanced picture.  Therefore, I
prefer to have those discussions conducted elsewhere as well, and among the
willing only.

If you insist on discussing commercial terms and licensing declarations, you
may wish to reduce the risks for yourself and the community by

-never discuss any $$$ amounts, i.e. the monetary compensation part of
licensing,
-be very careful when discussing other benefits of a licensing model you
prefer, and avoid implying that certain industries may benefit from it more
than others, 
-never imply that your statements apply to anyone but yourself, unless you
are authorized by that "anyone" (be it community, company, whatever), and
-avoiding categorical statements "we can't do this and that because".
Rather use "we should not do this and that because", or, better, "I prefer
not to do this and that because".

Stephan

P.s.: I fully understand and appreciate that most or all of our statements
in the IETF are made by us as individuals.