Re: Privacy and IETF participation (was: Re: [117attendees] Hilton room rates (Was: IETF 117 - thanks and afterthoughts))

[Lloyd W <lloyd.wood=40yahoo.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

context:

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/960617dellconsentorder.pdf

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/VESA_Local_Bus

it's the very model of a submarine patent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent

I don't think working around the microchannel architecture to avoid its licensing fees is in itself objectionable.   but designing a replacement that depends on a connector that you've secretly patented and lied about not having patented would be.

Lloyd Wood

lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx

On 8 Aug 2023, at 05:52, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

While agreeing with most of what John wrote, I think it is necessary to revisit what actually happened in the Dell patent case that motivates a lot of 'Note Well'.

The FTC suit and subsequent settlement was based on conduct much more egregious than a Dell employee merely being present. The whole point of VESA-Local bus was to find a way round the patented IBM Microchannel architecture. And by the time Dell settled, Intel had come out with the Pentium which made VL-bus unviable as it was tied to peculiarities of the 486.