[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IBM patents on key distribution and authentication




amir@watson.ibm.com says:
> Here is the statement, which I received from John Lowe from Licensing:
> 
>   `In the event that the proposed standard is adopted and the standard
>   cannot be practiced without the use of one or more issued patents,
>   including design patents for type fonts but excluding other design
>   patents, which are now or hereafter owned or controlled by IBM, IBM
>   agrees upon request to grant a non-exclusive license under such patent
>   or patents on a nondiscriminatory basis and on reasonable terms and
>   conditions including its then current royalty rates and provided a similar
>   grant under lincensee's patents within the scope of the license granted
>   to licensee is made available upon request to IBM.'

I am extraordinarily reluctant to propose that we use any patented
technology at all under any circumstances if it is at all avoidable,
unless the patent is made available without any license fee
whatsoever. This is for many reasons, including the fact that patented
technology makes freely available implementations nearly impossible,
and drastically slows the spread of a given technology. I also find it
difficult to stomach being part of a processed that imposes on third
parties the payment of royalties to one particular company that
managed to get its "foot in the door" -- and I wonder what the
anti-trust implications are for the IETF should a competitor, also
with a patented technology, become upset that their royalty machine
wasn't picked instead of, say, IBM's.

I've been forced to accept the necessity of using patented public key
technology in certain places, but I do so only with extreme reluctance
and because there are no reasonable substitutes for this technology.
Under most circumstances I personally would not support the use of any
technology for use in internet standard protocols, even if technically
superior in some minor ways, if they were patented and the patent
holders refused to relinquish any rights as a prerequisite of
standardization.

I am also very much horrified by the notion that anyone would propose
the use of patented technology, knowing it was patented, without
disclosing it during the working group process, as has apparently
happened in certain instances.

Perry


Follow-Ups: References: