Re: [idn] Walid inc. patent news.

[Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>]

At 10:11 AM -0400 4/26/01, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>On March 20th 2001, the wg co-chairs sent a request to Walid inc. 
>about the 6,182,148 patent. (original mail is attached). Walid inc. 
>acknowledged the reception of the email on the same day. Walid inc. 
>responded on April 13th 2001 with a series of questions that were 
>answered by one of the IDNA authors. One wg co-chair acknowledged to 
>Walid inc. that this IDNA author's email was answering the essence 
>of the Walid inc. questions. Since then, we haven't received any new 
>message or statement from Walid inc.

Greetings, all. This message contains the messages that were 
previously sent off of the mailing list. I am sending these messages 
to the IDN WG list with the verbal permission from both Patrik 
Fältström and Doug Hawkins.

Message 1 was sent by Patrik and I to the folks at WALID. It was a 
follow-up to personal discussions Patrik and I had with WALID folks 
at the Minneapolis IETF meeting. I wrote this message with Patrik's 
help and it reflected both our views.

Message 2 was sent by Doug Hawkins, the Director of WALID. This is 
the message Marc referred to when he said "Walid inc. responded on 
April 13th 2001 with a series of questions"

Message 3 was sent by Patrik. This is the message that Marc referred 
to when he said "that were answered by one of the IDNA authors". 
Although I didn't see that message when Patrik sent it (he knew I was 
on vacation and had no email access), I agreed with Patrik's 
statements after I read it.

--Paul Hoffman



=================================
Message 1
=================================

To: Doug Hawkins <dhawkins@walid.com>
From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>
Subject: WALID's patent and the IETF process
Cc: Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>, "Brian W. Spolarich" 
<briansp@walid.com>, Mark Welter <mwelter@walid.com>, Marc Blanchet 
<Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca>, James Seng <jseng@pobox.org.sg>
Bcc:
X-Attachments:

Greetings. This message comes in response to a discussions we had 
with the technical folks from WALID during the IETF meeting last 
week. We write this as long-time participants in the IETF; further, 
Patrik writes it as a member of the IESG who is quite aware of how 
the IESG deals with intellectual property issues in IETF standards.

During our discussions, it became clear that WALID has probably 
misunderstood the history of the IETF with respect to intellectual 
property rights (IPR) and therefore probably has too little 
information to make a good decision on how to deal with its rights in 
its US patent 6182148. We cannot tell WALID what to do, but we can 
certainly explain what the IETF has done historically, and explain 
what has been said about WALID and its patent in the weeks since it 
was revealed to us by one of WALID's competitors.

The IETF has always strongly favored completely unencumbered 
technology over any technology for which there are even mild 
licensing restrictions. Probably the most obvious example of this is 
the patent on the RSA algorithm. In every case, the IETF refused to 
make the RSA algorithm mandatory to implement, even when the 
competing algorithms such as DSA were difficult to implement for a 
particular protocol. In all security protocols standardized before 
the RSA patent expired, the IETF mandated some flavor of DSA.

Although such a policy may not seem "fair" to IPR owners, it has 
worked extremely well over the past 15 years. This is shown both by 
the growth of the Internet and by the near-complete withering of 
networks designed by organizations with weaker stances on IPR. Many 
large and small companies have contributed their IPR to the IETF 
standardization effort so that the best protocols can be standardized.

The WALID patent does not exist in a vacuum. The IDN Working Group 
has options that would not infringe on the WALID patent. The fact 
that all of these options are worse than the one currently favored 
does not affect the IETF's views on the patent. As long as there is 
any option that is unencumbered, a protocol that would infringe on 
the WALID patent will probably not be considered unless WALID signs 
an IPR statement giving full, free, and unencumbered access to the 
technology. This would involve a significant change to the WALID IPR 
statement on file with the IETF Secretariat.

For a Working Group in the IETF to move forward with a protocol 
involves getting the consensus of the Working Group, and any protocol 
that would involve Working Group members paying money (or even having 
to register with one of their competitors) is very unlikely to get 
the needed consensus. Nothing in the IETF process prohibits a Working 
Group from getting consensus around moving a solution with IPR 
statement like the current one from WALID forward; it is simply very 
unlikely if there are other options that don't have IPR issues.

When evaluating whether to change the WALID IPR statement, please be 
sure to look at the negative aspects of not changing it, or not 
changing it sufficiently. If WALID does not make the IPR fully and 
freely available, there is little chance that the IETF will chose a 
technology that infringes on the patent, and will instead choose a 
different technology. This leaves WALID with a pretty much useless 
patent, since the IDN community will go with the IETF standard. Worse 
for WALID, because the other technologies are less desirable than the 
one that uses the WALID patent, there will be lots of loud complaints 
about WALID for quite some time. Previous patent issues in the IETF 
usually have been identified as "the RSA mess" or "the Entrust mess"; 
having the problems in a non-ACE IDN solution being called "the WALID 
mess" will certainly not do WALID any good, particularly if the 
patent becomes useless. Articles about "the WALID mess" in the 
computer trade press and the business press might have a very 
negative financial effect on the company.

The solution to this problem is simple: create a good IPR statement 
for the patent. For example, Stanford's license for SRP 
authentication is quite simple, and is one of the main reasons this 
standard was allowed to move forward (see 
<http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/WU-SRP>). This could be used as a 
template for a WALID statement. Note that it is not clear how much 
WALID would have to give up to make the IETF happy; that won't be 
known until any standard has gone through the IESG. A license that is 
enough for the IDN Working Group might not be enough for the IESG, or 
vice versa. Thus, in order to assure that the Working Group uses the 
WALID patent (and therefore prevents this from becoming "the WALID 
mess"), WALID must be as generous as possible with the patent.

The upside of this will certainly be good will to WALID. Although 
everyone is now very angry with WALID, it is likely that it will 
dissipate almost immediately after the problem is resolved. This 
quick turnaround has happened consistently with other companies who 
have issued good IPR licenses to the IETF. At that point, WALID will 
certainly be remembered as a significant name in the IDN space, and 
earlier bad feelings will be forgotten.

If there is anything either of us can do to help you further with 
your decision, please let us know.

Paul E. Hoffman
Patrik Fältström



=================================
Message 2
=================================

From: "J. Douglas Hawkins" <dhawkins@walid.com>
To: <marc.blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca>, <jseng@pobox.org.sg>
Cc: <cmoss@walid.com>, <wtout@walid.com>, <phoffman@imc.org>, <paf@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: walid idn request
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 13:36:36 -0400
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal

Gentlemen:
I am writing in response to Marc Blanchet’s and James Seng’s e-mail of March
20, 2001, and Paul Hoffman’s and Patrik Faltstrom’s e-mail of March 25,
2001, concerning WALID’s U.S. patent number 6,182,148.  Since receiving
these e-mail messages, we have been reviewing our Intellectual Property
Rights notice, trying to address the concerns expressed in those e-mails and
seeking to balance the rights of all Internet users and WALID, Inc.  To that
end, we offer the following questions and ask that you (the participants who
have communicated directly with us) respond in a manner that will foster a
resolution to this matter.

·	In light of the confidentiality surrounding U.S. patent 
applications, is
the WG certain that the proposed alternatives to WALID’s technology are not
or will not be encumbered by patents?  Indeed, various of our competitors
who are represented in the IDN WG have submitted IPRs
(http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/DUALNAME-VIRTUAL-DOMAIN-NAMES;
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/IDNS-General;
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/NETEKA-DNSII;
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/NU-MLDNS) or filed foreign patent applications
now made publicly available
(http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=WO00050966A2) that lead us to believe
that they are seeking patent protection for alternatives to the method
described in the WALID patent.  Will the IETF take all IPR rights into
account in considering all of the possible recommendations?
·	As Paul Hoffman and Patrik Faltstrom point out, all of the other
alternative approaches are apparently technologically inferior when compared
to the ACE-based approach. How would adoption of any of these alternative
approaches meet the goal of “technical excellence” set out in RFC2026
section 1.2? Can we agree that the greatest benefit to all Internet users
will be achieved by adoption of the best technical solution? Paul Hoffman
and Patrik Faltstrom further point out and we agree that adoption of an
alternative approach will delay implementation of a standard by months at
the least and will hurt Internet users. How would the adoption of a non
ACE-based solution serve the interests of the Internet community?
·	RFC2026 states that the policy of the IETF with respect to intellectual
property issues is “to benefit the Internet community and the public at
large, while respecting the legitimate rights of others;” While we
understand that, as Paul Hoffman and Patrik Faltstrom state, the IETF “has
always strongly favored completely unencumbered technology over any
technology for which there are even mild licensing restrictions,” would
adherence to that principle in this instance be in the best interests of the
Internet community, particularly in light of our agreement regarding the
technical inferiority of the alternative methods? Furthermore, WALID’s IPR
notice is consistent with many IPR notices that have been submitted to the
IETF, including IPR notices that (we understand) include “mild licensing
restrictions” and still govern technologies that are now standards. Why is
WALID’s situation any different? Particularly in that WALID is already
making its own WORLDConnect(TM) client software available for free to end
users on its own website http://www.walid.com and via Verisign’s website
http://www.verisign-grs.com/multilingual/client?

We look forward to your response addressing these questions and hope that
together we can find a solution that best serves the Internet users and
industry.

Sincerely,
J. Douglas Hawkins
WALID, Inc.


=================================
Message 3
=================================

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 21:45:48 +0200
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
To: "J. Douglas Hawkins" <dhawkins@walid.com>, marc.blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca,
         jseng@pobox.org.sg
cc: cmoss@walid.com, wtout@walid.com, phoffman@imc.org
Subject: RE: walid idn request
X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.0a4 (Mac OS X)

--On 01-04-13 13.36 -0400 "J. Douglas Hawkins" <dhawkins@walid.com> wrote:

>  ·	In light of the confidentiality surrounding U.S. patent 
>applications, is
>  the WG certain that the proposed alternatives to WALID?s technology are
>  not or will not be encumbered by patents?

No. Definitly not. And, as you see in 2026, only individuals in the wg can
make up their mind what they think. The wg itself, and IETF procedures,
makes it possible to accept solutions which require licensing. The
procedures say that not only is interoperability tests with multiple
implementations needed, but also multiple licenses.

But, individuals in a wg can make up their mind thinking that a proposed
solution for success (note that Full Standard Status require "wide
deployment, and that the solution is generally a good thing") need a
specific kind of licensing.

In this specific case, individuals have contacted you at Walid saying that
we belive that the IPR statement Walid has posted is too strong for a
solution regarding IDN. My personal take is that _any_ solution for IDN
must have IPR statements from companies which might have impact on the
solution which makes it possible for _any_ person or company to write
software and publish it (as open source, as a commercial product, or part
of such a solution) without paying anyone anything, and without even
requiring an explicit license.

So far, I have read the statements from some of the companies, and yes, I
am worried about many of them.

At this point in time, Walid is the one which have a patent which at least
to me as amateur on patent issues have some claims which have impact on the
current solution which this wg is looking at at the moment.

I have not said that I belive that other solutions which might be possible
will not rise the same kind of concerns from me.

>  Indeed, various of our
>  competitors who are represented in the IDN WG have submitted IPRs
>  (http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/DUALNAME-VIRTUAL-DOMAIN-NAMES;
>  http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/IDNS-General;
>  http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/NETEKA-DNSII;
>  http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/NU-MLDNS) or filed foreign patent
>  applications now made publicly available
>  (http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=WO00050966A2) that lead us to believe
>  that they are seeking patent protection for alternatives to the method
>  described in the WALID patent.  Will the IETF take all IPR rights into
>  account in considering all of the possible recommendations?

Not IETF. But individuals. You have to differ between those two things.
IETF (and IESG for that matters) do _not_ take any position. Whether some
IPR statements are ok or not is a question which individuals in the wg
should make up their mind about while reaching consensus around a solution.

>  ·	As Paul Hoffman and Patrik Faltstrom point out, all of the other
>  alternative approaches are apparently technologically inferior when
>  compared to the ACE-based approach. How would adoption of any of these
>  alternative approaches meet the goal of ?technical excellence? set out in
>  RFC2026 section 1.2?

At the same time we have to come up with solutions which will be widely
deployed.

>  Can we agree that the greatest benefit to all
>  Internet users will be achieved by adoption of the best technical
>  solution?

Not completely correct. It must also be implementable and usable. Having a
solution which is not usable is to no use for the Internet community
regardless of what technical excellence the proposal is.

And, take into account the question we also have in this wg in parallel
which is the question which John Klensin have been rising all along, and
that is whether an IDN solution is really going to work if it is based on a
DNS solution which requires exact matches compared with a dictionary
solution which can handle approximate matching and more input to the query
than just the query string itself.

So, if not going with an ACE solution, I might personally as individual
very easy change to be standing on the side of John Klensin asking for the
IDN wg to compare the IDNA and other solutions with the requirements
document and simply declare that that is not possible with DNS, close the
wg, go home, and create the directory layer which is really needed
(regardless).

>  Paul Hoffman and Patrik Faltstrom further point out and we
>  agree that adoption of an alternative approach will delay implementation
>  of a standard by months at the least and will hurt Internet users. How
>  would the adoption of a non ACE-based solution serve the interests of the
>  Internet community?

Any solution which is possible to implement might be better than one which
is not possible to implement for various reasons, and licensing being one
of them.

>  ·	RFC2026 states that the policy of the IETF with
>  respect to intellectual property issues is ?to benefit the Internet
>  community and the public at large, while respecting the legitimate rights
>  of others;? While we understand that, as Paul Hoffman and Patrik
>  Faltstrom state, the IETF ?has always strongly favored completely
>  unencumbered technology over any technology for which there are even mild
>  licensing restrictions,? would adherence to that principle in this
>  instance be in the best interests of the Internet community, particularly
>  in light of our agreement regarding the technical inferiority of the
>  alternative methods? Furthermore, WALID?s IPR notice is consistent with
>  many IPR notices that have been submitted to the IETF, including IPR
>  notices that (we understand) include ?mild licensing restrictions? and
>  still govern technologies that are now standards. Why is WALID?s
>  situation any different?

Note what I wrote above regarding the view of individuals in the IDN wg,
and what the IETF procedures are.

My view is that any solution for IDN which have to be implemented in any
software which uses DNS, which is every software using the Internet, have
to be surrounded with IPR statements which leaves it to anyone to implement
the RFC exactly as stated in the RFC (i.e. I am not asking someone to give
away IPR rights to a patent, only enough so an RFC can be implemented).

>  Particularly in that WALID is already making its
>  own WORLDConnect(TM) client software available for free to end users on
>  its own website http://www.walid.com and via Verisign?s website
>  http://www.verisign-grs.com/multilingual/client?

Software has nothing to do with implementation of an RFC.

If Walid gives away the client code to end users, and have the view that
people whould be able to implement the IDNA solution which some claims in
the Walid patent covers, why not change the IPR statement to be something
like:

"In the case that the IDN wg produces RFC's which have parts which are
covered by claims in the Walid patents, we hereby give the rights to anyone
to implement those RFC without requirements for any extra licenses or fees.
We don't give the rights to implement Walid patent claims in any other
solutions than what is described in the RFC's."

My take is that Walid by doing something like this will (a) show that they
play the game in the IETF as a very good citizen (b) will (is already)
well-known for the ACE solutions and software.

I.e. if you (as I belive you think) you have a good implementation and know
what you are doing, don't you think you still will have at least as much
work to do if you let people implement the RFC without any extra license as
if you require one? What do you think people will think about Walid if they
implement the RFC, and you start chasing people? Will you hunt Linus
Torvald if the IDNA solution is included in Linux? If you do, what do you
think "Network World" will write about Walid in that case? If you don't
chase people down (including Linus), what is your patent worth?

This is a scenario which I as individual do not want.

>  We look forward to your response addressing these questions and hope that
>  together we can find a solution that best serves the Internet users and
>  industry.

    paf