In some mail from Bob Beck, sie said: > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure-00.txt > > > > In the meantime, the IETF has disclosed the following IPR statement > > from Cisco: > > > > <http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpsecure.txt> > > Translation - BOHICA, Cisco doesn't want people writing compatible > free network stacks, they want to patent TCP. RAND basically means no > free software, you must license on some terms. So we end up with > stupid situations like we did with VRRP (see > http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html for that sordid tale), and the IETF > will roll over and piddle on itself insted of standing up to this > nonsense like W3C does. This is nasty. Indeed. But there's room here to fight it if you think it is possible. The included text below is from an email to misc@xxxxxxxxxxxx The summary is if you feel that Cisco are not entitled to this patent then write to the USPTO, at the appropriate time, and tell them. Maybe Cisco won't get the patent and then it'll be no more of an issue. Of course doing that is going to take more effort/dedication than sending an email to bugtraq, but there you go. If you don't want Internet security to belong to corporate America, then you're going to have to fight for it. Darren
