Subject: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:27:48 -0700

Since there is now a specific value estimated by the LINUX community at 1.4B 
for the kernel itself, the IETF can no longer hide its head in the sand 
claiming that its workproduct has no specific value. This also means that 
ANY AND ALL contributions to the IETF no matter when they happened now need 
to be formally acknowledged for their financial value at the time of their 
contribution.

This is not an OPTION.

Todd Glassey 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Tim Bray" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:42:51 -0700

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 8:27 AM, TS Glassey <[email-masked]> wrote:
> for the kernel itself

Hey, I've done an analysis and found that my toenail clippings are
worth $3.8762 billion.  That kernel-valuation exercise is the silliest
kind of science fiction.  Let me let you in on a little secret:
Everything in the world has a value, and that value is exactly what
people are prepared to pay for it.  No more, no less.

On payment of a generous consulting fee, I would be delighted to
"estimate a specific value" for any given RFC or even I-D.  I'll even
issue gold-framed certificates you can mount on the wall.  -Tim

> , the IETF can no longer hide its head in the sand

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:53:54 -0400

Todd,

I generally agree with Tim that it would be difficult to put a value
on any IETF submission without an actual transfer of assets of some
sort to set a price.

However, in general, if a company feels that there is IPR value in
technology they are going to include in a submission (and this really
deals with ANY kind of standards submission, not just to the IETF),
they will most probably submit a patent application prior to the
standards submission. So the existence of a patent declaration
accompanying the submission at least provides a clue that the
submitting company feels that there is some value there (else they
wouldn't have bothered with the patent application).

However, a value generally can't be set until the company actually
starts to issue patent licenses. The value could be as little as zero
if no other companies feel compelled to license the technology.

As always, the "value of the workproduct", as you put it, is set by the market.

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:52:53 -0400

Tim:

I agree that the value of anything is set by the market.

Please tone down the sarcasm.  The IETF Discussion mail list and the 
IETF IPR WG mail list both need to be inviting places for open discussion.

Thanks in advance,
   Russ

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 17:54:56 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>; "IETF Discussion" 
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.

> on any IETF submission without an actual transfer of assets of some

The costs of replicating the works - say from a tech writer skilled in an 
area is a reasonable place to start. Take the hourly rate and then multiply 
that times the number of hours involved and the number of people.

I suggested that the unbundling of the R&D costs was appropriate since all 
the IETF publishes is a set of document-standards per se.

> deals with ANY kind of standards submission, not just to the IETF),

How do you figure they 'deal' with how much it costs to send people to the 
IETF several times a year. Also to cover the costs of their local 
participation.

> wouldn't have bothered with the patent application).

Only if there is a real program inside the Sponsor to accomplish that. This 
is one of the issues in the IETF. There are many who are really enamored 
with the idea that the IETF is a fraternal benevolent society rather than a 
Intellectual Proeperty War Chest disguised cleverly as an International 
Networking SDO.

> As always, the "value of the workproduct", as you put it, is set by the 

But the costs of creating it are not. That was the point. The baseline is 
the costs of replacing the written work.

>>> to be formally acknowledged for their financial value at the time of 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.3/1745 - Release Date: 10/25/2008 
9:53 AM

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 09:53:22 -0400

Todd,

I see your point about the cost of producing standards. However,
having been both on the vendor and service provider sides of the
street, I can tell you that most (all?) service providers generally
require their vendors to implement standards so that their products
are interoperable and meet particular requirements - in an RFP, it's
much easier to put in a list of RFCs, ITU-T recommendations, etc.,
rather than have to list every individual requirement. As a result,
vendors don't generally specifically track their standards
participation costs - it's just a part of the cost of doing business
in a particular market.

It all goes back to the light bulb as a great example of standards
setting - back before there was a standard base for bulbs, I'm sure
every light bulb manufacturer had a vested interest in their
pre-standard bases and sockets - whether it screwed left or right or
used push-in pins, the size of the base, etc., and sent people to the
meetings to represent their interests when that particular standard
was being set. It was just a necessary cost of being in the light bulb
business at that particular time.

Cheers,
Andy

On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 8:54 PM, TS Glassey <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:02:48 -0700

There was indeed a major struggle over the standardization of the light bulb socket. And the sad part is that due to patent encumberances the US unfortunately ended up with the inferior product!
 
Neither Swan nor Edison thought much about the mount. It was Swan's brother who did most to refine and perfect the base. Edison's screw thread came lose leading Swan to invent the bayonet mount. He also invented Vitrite, the glassy substance used as an insulator.
 
There was something of a platform war which led to calls for a standard base as misconfigured adaptors were causing houses to burn down. The Edison thread won in the US because the patent had expired and everyone could use it without royalty. 
 
It is also a neat rebuttal to the claim that network effects do not exist - as Margolis and co claimed in their laughable tract. If the issue were decided on technical grounds alone the US and Europe would have chosen the same base years ago. The US has not moved to the superior Swan mount because the short term switching costs outweigh the long term advantages. Change is only possible when a technology disruption occurs that negates the advantage of the legacy base. In the case of lightbulbs it is compact flourescents and LED bulbs, in the case of keyboards it would probably take really good handwriting recognition.

________________________________

From: [email-masked] on behalf of Andrew G. Malis
Sent: Tue 10/28/2008 9:53 AM
To: TS Glassey
Cc: [email-masked]; IETF Discussion; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.

Todd,

Cheers,
Andy

On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 8:54 PM, TS Glassey <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:03:40 -0000

> It all goes back to the light bulb as a great example of 
> standards setting - back before there was a standard base for 
> bulbs, I'm sure every light bulb manufacturer had a vested 
> interest in their pre-standard bases and sockets - whether it 
> screwed left or right or used push-in pins, the size of the 
> base, etc.,

You haven't tried to buy light-bulbs in England, have you?
The choice is bayonet mount, or screw mount, then several
size bases, not to mention halogen and spotlight mounts.

If you've traveled much in Europe you will notice similar
confusion with the standard plug shape. They all have the
same size and position of pins but only the Swiss hexagonal
plug will fit in all the sockets. Even the countries with
the same size round socket and plugs managed to place the
ground/earth connections in different places. And let's not
mention the Soviet Union's GOST standard where the pins are
1mm in diameter smaller and 1 mm further apart. That's the 
reason for the split pins on many plug adapters because
they have enough flex to work in sockets in Ukraine, Russia,
Kazakhstan etc.

Interoperability of standards is a hard-won prize, whether in
the IETF or elsewhere. The cost of producing documents is
a mere drop in the bucket. In addition, cost is a very slippery
thing to get ahold of because of the difference between 
expenses and investments.

--Michael Dillon

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:12:08 -0700 (PDT)

Since you brought it up, I am sure many readers of this list have 
never heard of Swan, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Swan

He did indeed invent the lightbulb and all of us Newcastle alumni know 
only too well ;-)

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: [email-masked]  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

> There was indeed a major struggle over the standardization of the 
> light bulb socket. And the sad part is that due to patent 
> encumberances the US unfortunately ended up with the inferior 
> product!
>  Neither Swan nor Edison thought much about the mount. It was Swan's 
> brother who did most to refine and perfect the base. Edison's screw 
> thread came lose leading Swan to invent the bayonet mount. He also 
> invented Vitrite, the glassy substance used as an insulator.
>  There was something of a platform war which led to calls for a 
> standard base as misconfigured adaptors were causing houses to burn 
> down. The Edison thread won in the US because the patent had expired 
> and everyone could use it without royalty.
>  It is also a neat rebuttal to the claim that network effects do not 
> exist - as Margolis and co claimed in their laughable tract. If the 
> issue were decided on technical grounds alone the US and Europe 
> would have chosen the same base years ago. The US has not moved to 
> the superior Swan mount because the short term switching costs 
> outweigh the long term advantages. Change is only possible when a 
> technology disruption occurs that negates the advantage of the 
> legacy base. In the case of lightbulbs it is compact flourescents 
> and LED bulbs, in the case of keyboards it would probably take 
> really good handwriting recognition.
>

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 09:24:38 -0700

On Oct 28, 2008, at 8:03 AM, <[email-masked]> <[email-masked] 
 > wrote:

> Interoperability of standards is a hard-won prize, whether in the  
> IETF or elsewhere. The cost of producing documents is a mere drop in  
> the bucket. In addition, cost is a very slippery thing to get ahold  
> of because of the difference between expenses and investments.

Agreed.  The prize may go to the influential, rather than being  
decided on merit.  In the end, it is often about either supporting a  
service or the cost of a service.  The goal, and not the cost, is what  
is important.

-Doug

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:12:49 -0400

--On Tuesday, 28 October, 2008 08:02 -0700 "Hallam-Baker,
Phillip" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> It is also a neat rebuttal to the claim that network effects
> do not exist - as Margolis and co claimed in their laughable
> tract. If the issue were decided on technical grounds alone
> the US and Europe would have chosen the same base years ago.
> The US has not moved to the superior Swan mount because the
> short term switching costs outweigh the long term advantages.
> Change is only possible when a technology disruption occurs
> that negates the advantage of the legacy base. In the case of
> lightbulbs it is compact flourescents and LED bulbs, in the
> case of keyboards it would probably take really good
> handwriting recognition.

One could, of course, make many of the same observations about
replacing SMTP and/or today's Internet mail formats with some
newly-invented and improved system, replacing HTTP with
something more elegantly designed based on what we know about
computer systems today, etc., as well as failure to harmonize
residential supply voltages around the world.  Whether the
problem is one of network effects or the related one of the
costs of replacing/ converting a large installed base, the
consequences are the same: mere incremental technical
superiority is almost never sufficient to motivate an
incompatible change.

   john

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:41:51 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Douglas Otis" <[email-masked]>
To: "Michael Dillon" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.

> service or the cost of a service.  The goal, and not the cost, is what

Which Doug is why the IETF needs to be totally open and transparent. Let the 
market decide on whether a standard gets acceptance or not.

The IETF's process should be totally revamped so that there is NO VOTING on 
anything other than what a standard will be for a given initiative when that 
initiative is approved. From that point on its only about whether the 
standards process meets its interim milestones. There is NO OTHER way to 
make the IETF fair for all concerned.

Todd

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1752 - Release Date: 10/28/2008 
10:04 AM

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:43:50 -0700

Exactly, replacing SMTP for email alone is a non-starter.
 
But it is entirely possible to replace a subset of SMTP functionality that the protocol handles poorly or provide a better superset.
 
For example, NNTP gots its start by providing a more efficient means of distributing mailing lists. RSS is now plugging the same niche in a much more scalable manner.
 
Alternatively, it is quite possible that a future protocol might address asynchronous and synchronous messaging in a wide spectrum of media (short message, mail messag, audio, video) in a better fashion than is provided in separate protocols today.

The key here however is the fact that switching costs for 'email' are not the same as switching costs for 'SMTP'. Providing new protocol servers also support the old, a transition could leverage the DNS to effect a seamless transition. SRV and DNS policy signalling are your friend.
 
That said, any new protocol would have to use the DNS and MIME content types at a minimum.

From: John C Klensin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tue 10/28/2008 1:12 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Andrew G. Malis
Cc: [email-masked]; IETF Discussion
Subject: RE: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.

   john

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:33:17 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
To: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; "IETF Discussion" <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:53 AM
Subject: Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.

> rather than have to list every individual requirement.

yes - as an after the fact model...

> As a result,

Not true from my experience auditing company's. Most company's who regularly 
rely on the Standards Dev Process as part of their operations have those 
broken down in a number of areas including Employee Wellfare which is 
ludicrous since the IETF has nothing to do with Human Welfare/

>>>>> Since there is now a specific value estimated by the LINUX community 
>>>>> at
>>>>> 1.4B
>>>>> for the kernel itself
>>>>

---

From: Doug Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:27:13 -0700

On Oct 28, 2008, at 10:12 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

> replacing SMTP and/or today's Internet mail formats with some newly- 
> invented and improved system, replacing HTTP with something more  
> elegantly designed based on what we know about computer systems  
> today, etc., as well as failure to harmonize residential supply  
> voltages around the world.  Whether the problem is one of network  
> effects or the related one of the costs of replacing/ converting a  
> large installed base, the consequences are the same: mere  
> incremental technical superiority is almost never sufficient to  
> motivate an incompatible change.

Agreed. However, the issue is often not about compatibility, or  
comparative adoption costs.  Take an extension to DKIM as an example.

The proposed ADSP extension imposes an incompatible change to support  
an Authentication-Results header which only identifies the From header  
field as having been authenticated.  An identical looking result can  
be obtained when DKIM-ADSP is replaced with Sender-ID.

In the case of ADSP, a compliant DKIM signature MUST be on behalf of  
the From header field, even when a different identity had been  
authenticated when signing.  In the case of Sender-ID, no email- 
address is authenticated, and yet the appearance of an email-address  
being authenticated is given.  Neither DKIM-ADSP or Sender-ID offer  
authenticated the email-addresses.  It is harder to SELL a service  
that adds a header that says "invalidation-results".   Rather than  
identifying an email-address as being INVALID with a moderate level of  
assurance, this header indicates PASS under the guise of  
authentication, but without there being either safe or reasonable  
levels of assurance to make the assertion.

This clearly is not about compatibility or relative adoption costs.   
These two approaches both represent incompatible changes where better  
alternatives do not impose additional cost.  Sender-ID's macro  
expansion of DNS records can cause hundreds of subsequent DNS  
transactions generated by recipients of spam, along with SMTP's  
inability comply with Sender-ID's path registration methods.  ADSP's  
subversion of DKIM's "on-behalf-of" will no longer reflect what was  
authenticated.  Both Sender-ID and ADSP have the potential for  
imposing significant future costs, incompatibilities, and damages.

The standardization process is being influenced by large providers  
wanting to both blame shift and to overstate the offering of their  
services which puts recipients at significant risk.   Whenever an  
email-address owner finds themselves blocked, it unfairly becomes  
their fault for trusting a provider that never promised to  
authenticate PRA or From email-addresses.   IETF's role should be to  
ensure dangerously misleading schemes are not endorsed, even when  
desired by those working for influential parties within the IETF.  A  
judgement of merit should not be limited to technical excellence, but  
should still include a consideration of the greater good.  Perhaps  
something similar to the Hippocratic oath to abstain from whatever is  
deleterious and mischievous.  Be the IETF and not the IVTF. : )

-Doug