-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "Bill" == Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> I'm with ESR on this one. The W3C bit the bullet and built a
>> patent/IPR policy that has integrity and is based on the notion
>> that the Net works properly when important components can be
>> built by un-funded independents without worrying about getting
>> their asses sued by someone with a patent portfolio. If the IETF
>> wants to ignore history and build an Internet where that doesn't
>> hold, feel free, but it's not a very interesting kind of place.
>> -Tim
Bill> the question of interest to an IETF working group is whether
Bill> the existance of a particular IPR claim is a barrier to
Bill> adoption of the technology.
Bill> Many IPR claims are bogus.
yet, I've tried to have this conversation SEVERAL times in the IPsec
WG wrt both the Certicom claim and the Microsoft NAT-T claims.
In both cases, I've been told that I'm not a lawyer.
Bill> If there is WG consensus that the IPR claim does not serve as
Bill> a barrier to adoption, we should not delay work on a standard
Bill> until the IPR claim is definitively proven bogus in the
Bill> courts.
I don't think that the question was ever properly asked.
- --
] "Elmo went to the wrong fundraiser" - The Simpson | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys
iQCVAwUBQXf9gIqHRg3pndX9AQGJhAP+ImO04V7B5zJexktkjBH5eL2AQtuiJeRk
ohphsAiRW2cCLD7OJ/FmSIFQktpv7eyoBmTzs1IWbH4Ozi/y8q/f8JlWhEshM8wc
/BM+v1EGJdnG7SLEboMxGKwdobAuVOdbMLuHDMEZit0+8EF9PSyVdCOsfaPkFmUV
MrlwdgxQino=
=nLse
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf