Fred, Mark,
I do not have any problem with statements of intellectual propery.
What I would like to see is the following:
1. Clear (I mean really clear) statement that states the extend and scope of the intellectual
property.
2. Clear statement about any patents(patent pending applications) that may be related to it.
3. Clear (I mean very clear)indication on what/how/ and how much is the company going
to charge (or not) for it.
Basically, in any proposed standard, we should try to use concepts that are public and
free for all. If not then we can choose intelelctual property that can be made easily acceptable.
I can say this based on my 4 years of ITU experience. I know in some cases that we were promissed
easy access (to all) to some patented technologyif if it was part of a recommendation but
the reality was different. (Basically the technology was not licenced to a competitor)
I think and in fact request that this subject be addressed properly right from the start.
abbie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Douglis [mailto:douglis@research.att.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:49 PM
> To: Mark Day
> Cc: cdn@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Some cautionary comments
>
>
> Mark,
>
> Thanks. Indeed, my recollection is a bit different, but
> that's not important now.
> What's important is that we add the appropriate verbiage to
> the I-Ds and that
> affected organizations make an appropriate statement to the IETF.
>
> Can the respective editors survey their contributors to see
> if anyone wishes
> to make such a statement, for inclusion in each of the I-Ds?
> I hope that any
> I-Ds that are live at the time of the next IETF meeting will have the
> appropriate statements.
>
> Speaking of which... I presume the charter has gone out by
> now? Discussion of
> the charter died out a while back and I eagerly await formal
> chartering... and
> am keeping my fingers crossed that they can again schedule
> all the related WGs
> in one day again :)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Fred
>
>
>
>