In message <200205292104.g4TL4WM03346@astro.cs.utk.edu>, Keith Moore writes: >> If what you are asking for is that for every proposal / i-d that shows >> up in the IETF, the IPR holder is automatically required to provide an >> RF license, you really don't understand the reason people bother with >> patents to begin with. > >doesn't follow. it's entirely possible to understand why people bother >with patents and still believe that IETF shouldn't support their use to >prevent free implementation of a standard. > There's an interesting dilemma here. I know of one case where some IETFers tried *hard* -- and persuaded their employers -- that an algorithm they invented should be patent-free. But someone else asserted that his patent *might* cover their invention -- and, since their employers wouldn't profit from a patent-free protocol, they wouldn't stand behind it if it went to court, or even to lawyers at 20 paces. That is: no patent and no profit => no strong backing. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com ("Firewalls" book)