Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Title: Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]

Different era.

Today we have had several companies burnes for up to half a billion dollars with piffle patents.

When tcpip was being written the patent office had not become a profit center, the seven nos were still an issue.


Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent:   Saturday, October 20, 2007 12:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
To:     Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc:     Ted Hardie; lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; Contreras, Jorge
Subject:        Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]

Phill,

> If there were in addition some standard non disclosure contracts, standard contracts for holding pre-standards meeting and the like the result could be turned into a book which most managers in the valley would probably end up buying.

Most of them, and those in Armonk that I used to work for, bought Section 10 of RFC 2026 and its successors. Certainly, open
source was less of a factor when that regime was designed, but Linux still supports TCP/IP as far as I know. So I think the
experimental evidence supports the arguments you're hearing from me, Ted and others.

Don't confuse that with a liking for standards encumbered by patents with expensive licensing conditions. It's simply a matter
of finding a pragmatic compromise in a world where software patents are granted, and often upheld by the courts, so that the
goal of 100% unencumbered standards is unrealistic.

    Brian

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]