Why would you believe that a representation in the press on an issue as complex as this is at all accurate? That quote is not a correct or complete description of IEEE LoAs. First off, the IEEE-SA can request all it wants but has no power to require anything of parties who are not part of the IEEE-SA process. Second, a Letter of Assurance can say a variety of things such as (1) the potentially essential patent won't be enforced against anyone who implements the standard, (2) the patent will be licensed on a RAND basis (reasonable and non-discriminatory royalties), or (3) the patent holder reserves the right to charge whatever it feels like on whatever basis it wants. The LoA form is here: http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/loa.pdf. The IEEE-SA Patent Policy slide set is here: http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt. An IEEE-SA Patent Policy FAQ is here: http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/faq.pdf. Donald -----Original Message----- From: Paul Vixie [mailto:paul@xxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 1:48 PM To: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point? in <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/21/802_11n_patent_threat/>, we see: Letters of Assurance are requested from all parties holding patents which may be applicable to any IEEE standard. Basically they state that the patent owner won't sue anyone for implementing the standard. ... i was thinking, what a great policy. why doesn't IETF have one like it? _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf