In message <Pine.LNX.4.62.0509081359170.17352@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "william(at)elan .net" writes: > >On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Dave Crocker wrote: > >>> [Note: Not very long ago, I argued persuasively to a large and broad >>> movement within the IETF seeking to have the IETF adopt an anti-patent >>> position. >> >> my memory is slipping worse that I thought. >> i don't recall seeing evidence of the community's being persuaded. It wasn't -- he's wrong. > >Neverheless if I understand it, it has always been a position of IETF >to consider patented technology as being less preferable then patented >for standardization (ok, it also has a lot to do with kind of licese >patened technology has and if its available to everyone's use or not) >and that in case standardization of certain patented technology is >being considered IETF should look at if alternative to it that is >non-patented is available. > I didn't see the original note -- if it was from whom I think it was, my killfile took care of that -- but for a more authoritative description of the situation, see the first two paragraphs of Section 2 of RFC 3669. Wearing my IPR WG hat and citing a product of that WG... --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf