> >It seems to me that in some sense that disclosing a patent should not >make us less willing to use something. This is especially true when >the disclosing party is not obligated to make the disclosure. >Disclosing a patent along with an implication that the patent will be >enforced or that the patent is high value should make us less willing >to use a technology. I'll even except that absent royalty-free >licensing a typical patent disclosure has the implication of desire to >enforce the patent. I think it is very dangerous to infer anything like "desire to enforce the patent". These are situations where you actually have to read the specifics to know what it is going. That's why we already have strong encouragement to include license statements with IPR disclosures (see the declaration form, section VI). The availability of for-royalty patent licenses along side other types of licenses, as in the statement at http://www1.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-06.txt may or may not change the calculus of a developer who intends to implement this. But it is clearly neither the same as a case where all licenses are royalty bearing nor the case where all licenses are free. Nor is it the same as a license where the maximum fee requested is guaranteed to be a percentage (and hence zero for free implementations). Again, speaking just for myself. regards, Ted PS. My apologies to my Cisco colleagues if I appear to be consistently using your declarations as examples. No harm intended. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf