On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Siva Narendra <siva@tyfone.com> wrote:
> It is necessary for us to keep things in perspective -- when we are taking
> about encumbered due to IPR, let us keep in mind that IPR of NPEs (aka
> Trolls) far out weigh member companies that are practicing entities. NPE
> market in 2011 was $29bn [1]. No organization can protect against action of
> NPEs and non-members.
>
> IPR is not an issue that this proposed WG/IG is qualified to resolve or
> guarantee. So, let us focus on what would it take to make the web more
> generic (including FIDO) rather than restrict it only to FIDO.
>
> [1]
> http://www.bu.edu/law/faculty/scholarship/workingpapers/documents/BessenJ_MeurerM062512rev062812.pdf
>
>
NPEs are always an issue. The issue specific to this proposal is that it is
known to be encumbered by practicing entities who actively litigate, who
may not participate (in the W3C), and that GP is perfectly OK with that.
Compared with FIDO, in which NPEs are equally a threat, but which the
standards developed by members have been expressly granted to anyone to
implement.
Talking about NPEs is unproductive and simply serves to disguise the fact
that GP is already known to be encumbered, and that is exceptionally
relevant to the technical decisions that the WG makes and considers.