[ih] patent licenses, not Why the six month draft expiration ?

[vinton cerf]

good point about legacy rights, Karl.
v


On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 6:49 PM Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Funny you should mention Jorge C.  I was trying to find him at a
> gathering just yesterday.  (BTW, decades ago he helped us put together
> the Boston Working Group that kinda buzzed around ICANN.)
>
> I don't understand your point about attracting patent trolls. (And I
> really liked you comment on the trustworthiness - or lack of - in
> today's LLCs that have been trained on whatever junk they can grab.  But
> more carefully trained systems are already coming along.)
>
> And I do understand Vint's point about generating revenue (and
> demonstrating public support) to the US IRS.)
>
> No matter the IETF's policies around standards-making documents there
> will arise copyrights and patents that someone might wish to transfer to
> a nice, tax exempt (e.g. section 501), long-lived, institutional owner -
> such as ISOC - that will make them available to the community on fair
> and reasonable terms.  (In a way we already have this, in a limited
> sense, in the regional IP address registries.)
>
> This holding and licensing is quite distinct from IP disclosure
> obligations on IETF materials.
>
> (As an aside: As a society we are facing a largely under-discussed issue
> of what happens to all of the digital assets a person holds when he dies
> - we certainly don't want important Internet assets to dangle in the
> hands of a probate court like the orphans in Dickens' Bleak House.
> Things like charitable remainder trusts could help people pass useful IP
> rights to ISOC with minimal tax or probate implications.)
>
>      --karl--
>
> On 2/3/24 2:29 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
> > On Sat, 3 Feb 2024, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >> - I think it would be cool if ISOC or the IETF established an arm
> >> that could accept and hold network related patents and issue licenses
> >> (for free or for reasonable low fees and non-discriminatory terms.)
> >> I have nothing more detailed that that thought, but I do so much
> >> dislike the surfacing of patent trolls, always at the most
> >> inconvenient of times.
> >
> > Speaking as a former trustee of the IETF Trust,  GAAAAAHHHHH
> > NONONONONONO.
> > That would be painting a bullseye on ourselves for patent trolls.
> >
> > The IETF has a carefully designed patent policy.  It was largely
> > written by Jorge Contreras who is quite literally the world's leading
> > expert on standards and IP.  We were very lucky to have him work with
> > us.  Scott was his coauthor and might fill in some details.
> >
> > To oversimplify it says everyone involved in developing an RFC must
> > disclose IPR related to it, and the IETF can decide what to do with
> > them. Most IETF standards are either unencumbered or have free public
> > licenses but there have been a few with more restrictive licenses.
> >
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8179.html
> >
> > Here's Jorge's list of papers at SSRN, lots of stuff about FRAND,
> > standard-essential patents, and a certain amount about trolls.
> >
> > https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1335192
> >
> > Regards,
> > John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
> > Dummies",
> > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
> https://jl.ly
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>