Re: The OWF Approach to patents for light-weight standards

On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 01:50:05 +0200, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>  
wrote:

> Eduardo Gutentag suggested:
>> I would propose a different set of requirements for the IPR policy to  
>> be used by these groups (whatever they are called):
...

>> - it should be such that participating patent owners cannot game the  
>> system by submarining their inventions
>
>
> A patent owner can only do that once before it is kicked out of the  
> community.

Unfortunately, kicking them out of the community doesn't stop them holding  
patents, it just stops them collaborating, along with their patent  
portfolio. "Rambus" is a dirty word, but there is no rational reason to  
expect that all patent holders will therefore avoid that path, and  
rational reasons to expect that someone will if they judge that they can  
win that way.

>> - it should be such that participating patent users cannot force patent  
>> owners to license RF against their will
>
> Agreed. Contributions should always be voluntary.

Agreed.

>> - it should be such that users do not have to wait until the very end  
>> of the process to know whether there is protection for their use of the
>> group's output
> ... If anyone is worried about specific patents, they can seek a  
> voluntary signature on the OWFa from the patent owner. Get it over with  
> as soon as possible. That works already for "Necessary Claims" even with  
> the current OWFa 0.9, although we're exploring alternative versions of  
> that agreement.


>> - it should be such that a patent owner cannot walk away from it at the  
>> last minute, thus rendering useless a sustained collective effort
>> engaged in good faith by most.
>
> Unfortunately, that's what everyone means by "voluntary signature on the  
> OWFa". But patent owners who do that are likely not to be invited to the  
> table next time. Is that sufficient to deter bad faith behavior for  
> light-weight standards? Probably not entirely. The old battles between  
> good and evil will probably continue.

No, I don't think this is sufficient. As noted above, kicking people out  
of the community doesn't actually strike me as the right sanction, since  
it potentially hurts the community far more than the miscreant. Apple made  
several claims against the widget family of specifications that appear to  
be entirely unfounded, yet it is to the benefit of the widget community if  
Apple participates - there is nothing much to be gained by their absence.

More importantly, they made these claims about the last possible day. This  
actually makes sense - unless there is a clear case for donating the  
patent (or promising non-assert or whatever the relevant technical details  
of a given situation), it makes sense to spend as much time as there is  
available to consider the options, determine what a patent-holder's  
strategy should be, etc.

I therefore agree with Eduardo that we should be looking for policy which  
provides security as early as possible.

>> Of course the PSIG will find the right IPR policy that ensures all this  
>> in just a couple of days ;-)

Indeed. I just wish I knew which days those would be, and could skip the  
waiting from now to then...

> OWF invites masochists to join us also. Why let PSIG have all the fun?  
> Fortunately I'm in both places.

Lucky you ;)

>> I do envision the possibility of having two patent policies in parallel  
>> for a while, the existing one and an experimental one for these
>> incubator/fast-forward groups.
>
> I like that plan!

Frankly I don't much like the potential for confusion, but I suspect it is  
the best way to move forward (or to follow Eduardo's formulation, the one  
which provides the lowest and most widely-shared misery).

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com

Received on Thursday, 22 July 2010 19:07:09 UTC