<div dir="auto">No specific patent is discussed below<br><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 3:37 PM Peter Constable <<a href="mailto:pgcon6@msn.com">pgcon6@msn.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="m_6804776646308401150WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">As for ISO patent policies, there’s a link on that resources page, repeated here for convenience:<br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.iso.org/iso-standards-and-patents.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://www.iso.org/iso-standards-and-patents.html</a><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="m_6804776646308401150MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in">Participants should, as early as possible, “draw attention to” known patents that would be essential to implementation of a specification<u></u><u></u></li><li class="m_6804776646308401150MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in">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.</li></ul></div></div></blockquote></div><div dir="auto">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." </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">I remember reading <a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#RAND">https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#RAND</a> 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:<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">"""</div><div dir="auto">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.”</div><div dir="auto"><p style="margin:1em 0px;padding:0px;line-height:1.5em">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.</p><p style="margin:1em 0px;padding:0px;line-height:1.5em">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.</p><p style="margin:1em 0px;padding:0px;line-height:1.5em">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.</p><p style="margin:1em 0px;padding:0px;line-height:1.5em">"""</p></div></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="m_6804776646308401150WordSection1"><ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc"><li class="m_6804776646308401150MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in">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.</li></ul></div></div></blockquote></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="m_6804776646308401150WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Certainly early in my time at Microsoft (probably in the required “PM Bootcamp” training), I was told this<br></p></div></div></blockquote></div><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif"><div dir="auto">The times they are a changing: it looks like Microsoft contributed ALL it's patents to OIN back in 2018. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/microsoft-open-sources-its-entire-patent-portfolio/">https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/microsoft-open-sources-its-entire-patent-portfolio/</a> says,</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">"""</div><div dir="auto">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."</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">How many patents does this affect? </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Andersen said Microsoft is bringing all 60,000 patents to OIN.</div><div dir="auto">"""</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But we don't know who is contributing to OFF, and we don't know if they are all OIN members. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif">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. </div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It seems desirable to me that there be a policy where everyone participating is clear that "just works everywhere" going in.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Can the OFF process get an exception so §2.2 is off the table? </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="m_6804776646308401150WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u>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.<br></p></div></div></blockquote></div><div dir="auto">The secrecy of the ISO process is extremely unattractive to me. </div><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="m_6804776646308401150WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u>Consider the presence of a public archive in relation to a company’s concern about protection from patent suits</p></div></div></blockquote></div><div dir="auto">I think any concern needs to be addressed at a much higher level, so the public archive isn't subject to any such concerns. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Worrying about this stuff by participants is like this jogger - <a href="https://twitter.com/SchwartzTV/status/1296813126868901892?s=19">https://twitter.com/SchwartzTV/status/1296813126868901892?s=19</a> - individual action to address the endemic situation is absurd. </div><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="m_6804776646308401150WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div>