IPR Working Group M. Riegel Internet-Draft June 24, 2002 Expires: December 23, 2002 Considerations for Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Standards draft-riegel-ipr-practices-00.txt Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 23, 2002. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. Abstract IPRs in standards have been in discussion for many years. The legal aspects of patents and benefits and drawbacks for standards development organizations do not allow simple solutions. Most SDOs dealing with communication standards are following the concept of Open Standards. Among its principles are the issues of 'Open IPR' and 'Open Use'. This memo focuses on the methods the IETF is achieving 'Open IPR' and 'Open Use' and expresses some possible extensions to the procedures of the IETF to enable consideration of IPR covered proposals for restricted areas in a well structured way. Riegel Expires December 23, 2002 [Page 1] Internet-Draft IPRs in IETF standards June 2002 Table of Contents 1. Personal Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Intellectual Property Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1 Copyright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2 Patent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Implications of IPRs on standardization . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Value of Patents in Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1 Compulsory Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2 Voluntary Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Current IPR practices in the IETF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Refined IPR procedures for the IETF . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Riegel Expires December 23, 2002 [Page 2] Internet-Draft IPRs in IETF standards June 2002 1. Personal Disclaimer This memo expresses purely the personal opinion of the author and does not describe in any part a company's position concerning IPRs in standards. Furthermore, being an engineer and not a patent attorney the statements concerning legal details shouldn't be taken as proved. The ideas expressed in this memo are stemming from many years' involvement in standardization and in particular from the experiences with IPR discussions in the ROHC working group. Riegel Expires December 23, 2002 [Page 3] Internet-Draft IPRs in IETF standards June 2002 2. Introduction IPRs in standards have been in discussion for many years. There are many publications covering the legal aspects of patents and benefits and drawbacks for standards development organizations. Several special issues have been published by the IEEE recently [1][2]. Most SDOs dealing with communication standards are following the concept of Open Standards. A good explanation about the principles of Open Standards is given by [3]. Among the principles are the issues of 'Open IPR' and 'Open Use'. The issue 'Open IPR' is requesting the declaration of any known IPR during the standardization process by the participants. To fulfill this issue all SDOs dealing with Open Standards have according rules in their charters. 'Open Use' means that Open Standards should be implementable and useable without the need to strive for licenses from patent holders. Because there is no way to prove that a particular technology is not covered by IPRs this principle is barely to achieve. Nevertheless some standardization organizations are staying with this principle, with remarkable success. This memo focuses on the methods the IETF is achieving 'Open IPR' and 'Open Use' and expresses some possible extensions to the procedures of the IETF to allow consideration of IPR covered proposals for restricted areas. Riegel Expires December 23, 2002 [Page 4] Internet-Draft IPRs in IETF standards June 2002 3. Intellectual Property Rights The Intellectual Property Law knows about several different kinds of IPRs. While Trade Secrets, Trademarks or Semiconductor Chip Protection Act normally do not have relevance in standardization, the Copyright and the Patent are quite important. 3.1 Copyright The US Code defines, that "Copyright protection subsists in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device". Copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. In standardization Copyright protects the expression of the standard means the text, the drawings, the perceivable form. Copyright grants the owner exclusive rights for reproducing, preparing derivative work and distributing copies of the work. As standards are normally a derivative work put together out of many particular contributions, SDOs require from all contributors to a standard, that the Copyright for standards contributions is handed over to the SDO. 3.2 Patent Patents were originally introduced to promote the progress of science and technology by granting to inventors exclusive rights for a limited time, when the inventions are made known to the public. In extension of the rights provided by Copyright, Patents are covering the idea itself, which must be a new and useful process, machine, manufacture of matters or new and useful improvement of these. Patents provide the patent owner a complete monopoly on the invention and the use of it. Even if the same invention is made fully independently by somebody else, the patent owner can prevent the use of the invention, that means, prohibit that the (re)inventor is taking use of the idea. Riegel Expires December 23, 2002 [Page 5] Internet-Draft IPRs in IETF standards June 2002 4. Implications of IPRs on standardization While Copyright does not cause major concerns in standardization - appropriate rules have been set up by all SDOs and are well understood and accepted by the contributors to standardization - the monopoly, a Patent grant to the owner, might cause serious trouble in standardization. It might happen that a SDO develops with considerable effort a new standard and this standard couldn't be used by anybody due to a Patent, which covers part of such standard and is not allowed to be used. More seriously, it is nearly impossible to make sure, that a standard is not covered by any Patent, as invention filings are not accessible by the public for some time. To cope with these matters SDOs are trying to get knowledge about related invention filings and Patents as early as possible. It is common in Open Standardization that all participants in a particular standardization process have to declare the existence of all their related Patents. If anything gets known, the SDO is trying to get a disclaimer of the Patent owner that the patent can be used in such standard and all the implementers of such standard get licenses under fair and reasonable terms. What is meant by 'fair and reasonable' is normally left open by the disclaimer, and might be subject of business contracts between the Patent owner and the manufacturer later. Riegel Expires December 23, 2002 [Page 6] Internet-Draft IPRs in IETF standards June 2002 5. Value of Patents in Standards The conditions of a license for a Patent covered in a standard will be closely related to the importance of the standard for a business. Main differentiation might be compulsory standards, which are unconditionally necessary for a particular application, and voluntary standards, which are open to acceptance by the market and can be replaced by something equivalent, if the conditions are too expensive. 5.1 Compulsory Standards With the deregulation of telecommunication worldwide the number of compulsory standards for telecommunication diminishes steadily, but especially for telephony and public mobile communication systems like 2G and 3G there still exist many standards a operator has to implement when getting a license for telecommunication or spectrum usage. Patents being covered by compulsory standards have to be licensed in any case, and this might contribute to the conditions of the license. 5.2 Voluntary Standards Open standards are aimed to be voluntary standards. They often provide particular functions, not a complete network architecture, but building blocks, which can be used to set up a network architecture. It is quite feasible with voluntary standards, that the same function can be realized by another voluntary standard, based on different procedures, potentially avoiding known patents. Furthermore acceptance of a particular standard by the market might closely depend on the conditions to get all the licenses necessary for implementing the standard. The market will go most likely for the standard not needing a license at all, and the organizational effort to set up licensing agreements is an important issue especially for smaller companies. The fast success of the Internet and the World-Wide-Web may have been highly driven by the fact, that the relevant standards are license free. Getting profits out of a patent used in a voluntary standard might be a difficult task. If alternatives to an incumbent procedure are available, the implementers will most likely go with solutions not covered by patents to avoid expensive business negotiations as well as license fees. And if an alternative is established in the market, nobody will have any interest in the patent and all the effort put Riegel Expires December 23, 2002 [Page 7] Internet-Draft IPRs in IETF standards June 2002 into the patent will be lost. Being in such an open and competitive environment, patents can be treated like selling goods in an open market. The market will decide whether it is worth to go with an incumbent proposal. Riegel Expires December 23, 2002 [Page 8] Internet-Draft IPRs in IETF standards June 2002 6. Current IPR practices in the IETF The IETF is developing voluntary standards for the Internet and has established well thought procedures to deal with IPRs in standards discussions. Chapter 10 of RFC2026 [4] specifies the rules of the IETF on Intellectual Property Rights in standards discussion. It defines the provisions related to copyrights, authors of submissions to the standards process have to grant to the IETF, as well as the procedure to declare knowledge of incumbent proposals as far as known to the author. IETF working groups have the goal to develop unincumbent solutions. To reach this goal the IETF has the intention to get known of incumbent proposals as early as possible in the standardization process to be able to look for alternative, not incumbent solutions. The IETF requires that contributors have to disclaim their knowledge about IPRs in their proposals together with submission of the proposal. It is likely in an experts' world that the authors of contributions have good knowledge about the eventual IPRs of their own proposals in general. With many experts contributing their IPR knowledge into the standards discussion it becomes quite likely, that all IPRs related to the result of the standards discussion gets known. In this sense a long list of coauthors on Internet Drafts is very supportive for developing unincumbent standards. It is common fear of contributors that their costly established rights on inventions will loose the value when their incumbent solution will become known to the IETF. An IETF working group will likely develop a standard not comprising the incumbent solutions contributed to the IETF. Unfortunately this leaves not much space for incumbent functions in standards providing superior performance. Riegel Expires December 23, 2002 [Page 9] Internet-Draft IPRs in IETF standards June 2002 7. Refined IPR procedures for the IETF Open, license-free standards have shown incredible benefits for the global economy. A huge community inside and outside the IETF is supporting the idea of open source systems and open source software. They are all needing license-free standards to be able to implement them in the open source environment. IETF standards specifying protocols aimed for general use in the Internet should be kept license-free to support the fast and broad adoption in the market The IETF should stay with the goal to develop unincumbent standards. It might be helpful to provide a more accessible database of IPR declarations than the current list on the IETF web-site to support implementers as well as working groups. In cases where an incumbent solution might provide additional benefits for particular applications, the standard should be split up in the license-free mandatory part and optional enhancements probably covered by IPRs. o Keeping license-free parts and incumbent parts separate would provide a well defined way for the IETF to include incumbent solutions as optional enhancements. o Incumbent solutions should never become part of the base specification or mandatory part of the standard to enable at least interoperability of basic functions between all implementations. The IETF has long experience with protocols allowing optional enhancements. PPP [5] might be one of the best examples. o Optional enhancements might be, but do not have to be covered by IPRs providing additional functionality to the standard. This allows the use of the best technology available for enhancements of IP protocols. o Optional enhancements should always allow several different solutions for the same requirement enabling a competitive environment not only for the best technical solution but also for the most appropriate license condition. Riegel Expires December 23, 2002 [Page 10] Internet-Draft IPRs in IETF standards June 2002 References [1] Kipnis, J., "Beating the System: Abuses of the Standards Adoption Process", IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 38, No. 7, pp. 102 - 105, July 2000. [2] Egyedi, T., "IPR paralysis in standardization: Is regulatory symmetry desirable?", IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 108 - 114, April 2001. [3] Krechmer, K., "The Principles of Open Standards", Standards Engineering Society, World Standards Day http://www.csrstds.com/ openstds.html, 1998. [4] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. [5] Simpson, W., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD 51, RFC 1661, July 1994. Author's Address Maximilian Riegel Maxfeldstr. 24a Nuremberg 90409 Germany Phone: +49-911-538747 EMail: riegel@max.franken.de Riegel Expires December 23, 2002 [Page 11] Internet-Draft IPRs in IETF standards June 2002 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Riegel Expires December 23, 2002 [Page 12]