[MPEG-OTSPEC] MATH Encumbrance

[Dave Crossland]

No specific patent is discussed below

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 3:37 PM Peter Constable <pgcon6 at msn.com> wrote:

> As for ISO patent policies, there’s a link on that resources page,
> repeated here for convenience:
>
> https://www.iso.org/iso-standards-and-patents.html
>
>
>
> Now, it appears that the details might only be available if have access to
> internal documents (e.g., if you were added because your NB nominated you
> as an expert to participate in a WG). Some of the high-level points are
>
>
>
>    - Participants should, as early as possible, “draw attention to” known
>    patents that would be essential to implementation of a specification
>    - Patent holders must submit a “Patent Statement and Licensing
>    Declaration” form and agree to RAND licensing terms for any implementer in
>    relation to essential patents; however, they are not required to enumerate
>    specific details regarding the patents.
>
> ISO common patent policy §2.2 is RAND, but §2.1 is FRAND, which is what I
think the vast majority of the community here is interested in, if they
want fonts that "just work everywhere."

I remember reading
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#RAND many many years
ago, which explains why RAND isn't going to work for stuff that is meant to
"just work everywhere", as fonts are:

"""
Standards bodies that promulgate patent-restricted standards that prohibit
free software typically have a policy of obtaining patent licenses that
require a fixed fee per copy of a conforming program. They often refer to
such licenses by the term “RAND,” which stands for “reasonable and
non-discriminatory.”

That term whitewashes a class of patent licenses that are normally neither
reasonable nor nondiscriminatory. It is true that these licenses do not
discriminate against any specific person, but they do discriminate against
the free software community, and that makes them unreasonable. Thus, half
of the term “RAND” is deceptive and the other half is prejudiced.

Standards bodies should recognize that these licenses are discriminatory,
and drop the use of the term “reasonable and non-discriminatory” or “RAND”
to describe them. Until they do so, writers who do not wish to join in the
whitewashing would do well to reject that term. To accept and use it merely
because patent-wielding companies have made it widespread is to let those
companies dictate the views you express.

We suggest the term “uniform fee only,” or “UFO” for short, as a
replacement. It is accurate because the only condition in these licenses is
a uniform royalty fee.

"""


>    - In committee or WG discussions, “the Technical Bodies may not take
>    position regarding the essentiality, scope, validity or specific licensing
>    terms of any claimed Patents.” IOW (my paraphrase), the tech nerds should
>    not engage in legal discussions.
>
> However, a lot of nerds are sole proprietors and need to know what's up,
for real, and they aren't in the committee or Working Group cabal.

Certainly early in my time at Microsoft (probably in the required “PM
> Bootcamp” training), I was told this
>
The times they are a changing: it looks like Microsoft contributed ALL it's
patents to OIN back in 2018.

https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/microsoft-open-sources-its-entire-patent-portfolio/
says,

"""
Erich Andersen, Microsoft's corporate vice president and chief intellectual
property (IP) counsel -- that is, Microsoft top patent person -- added: We
"pledge our entire patent portfolio to the Linux system. That's not just
the Linux kernel, but other packages built on it."

How many patents does this affect?

Andersen said Microsoft is bringing all 60,000 patents to OIN.
"""

But we don't know who is contributing to OFF, and we don't know if they are
all OIN members.

So it seems to me personally that the ISO patent policy situation is
undesirable, as it risks an encumbered future from arising, and we are just
lucky that right now isn't a such a period of pain due to some RANDy patent
troll setting up a §2.2 tollbridge.

It seems desirable to me that there be a policy where everyone
participating is clear that "just works everywhere" going in.

Can the OFF process get an exception so §2.2 is off the table?

On this list, if someone mentioned patent details in the course of some
> subject, I would anticipate that some would feel it necessary at a minimum
> to discontinue participating in or reading any messages in that thread
> (perhaps even immediately deleting them from their mail). And if that
> happened repeatedly, I would anticipate people might unsubscribe from the
> list and, perhaps, insist on a more formal WG process in which details of
> discussions are not made public.
>
The secrecy of the ISO process is extremely unattractive to me.

> Consider the presence of a public archive in relation to a company’s
> concern about protection from patent suits
>
I think any concern needs to be addressed at a much higher level, so the
public archive isn't subject to any such concerns.

Worrying about this stuff by participants is like this jogger -
https://twitter.com/SchwartzTV/status/1296813126868901892?s=19 - individual
action to address the endemic situation is absurd.

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20200822/834d980e/attachment.html>