On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:15:55 +1300 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2007-10-25 04:30, Sam Hartman wrote: > > ... > > Simon> If you replace IBM with 'A Patent Troll', do you think > > Simon> the same holds? > > I think that such behavior should > > Simon> be presumed not to be a patent > > troll. Patent trolls are not known forpromising to give away > > royalty-free licenses. > > They are also, in general, known for *not* particpating in > the standards process, precisely to avoid falling under > patent disclosure requirements. As far as non-participants > are concerned, nothing in our rules matters. > Right. Any IPR policy has to acknowledge the fact that relevant patents can be owned by non-troll non-participants. (Too many negatives there -- what I'm saying is that IETFers don't know of all patents in the space, and there are real patent owners who care about their patents, even though they aren't trolls.) --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf