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.
Which is still true, I hope. I don't believe in either case that the WG was making a decision on what technology to standardize on based on the patent issues. In the case of the Certicom claim to all Diffie-Hellman MODP groups, the WG has not changed its standard. On the NAT-T claims, the WG went ahead.
This discussion should focus on when there are IPR claims that impinge on the most-desired technology of the group, and the next-most-desired technology is significantly technically inferior. There are probably a small number of cases in the IETF where this has happened, but not nearly as many as the folks who are claiming the IETF's imminent demise would suggest.
--Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf