"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > We have published encumbered experimental and informational > documents on many occasions. I can see no reason not to do so in > this case. The reasons are the same as they have always been. Making a mistake in the past is no reason to continue making that same mistake. Software idea patents place control over *every* independent implementation of an idea in the hands of *one* entity, who then gets to dictate whatever terms they like. This is unjust, and is a practical hindrance on every software developer since it adds to the minefield of ideas that they must avoid using when designing their code. Even developers who are not intending to use ideas encumbered by a particular patent can independently arrive at some specific method described in that patent, and inadvertantly violate the patent rules. In such cases the violation will not be discovered for some unknown amount of time. The burden on software developers thus mounts with every patent on a software idea. To allow a technology, encumbered by any known patent holder's monopoly, as a proposed standard (even experimental or informational or any other status) is to give legitimacy to this system that directly harms development of all software, and especially harms the goal of interoperability that is part of the purpose of a standards process. Please explicitly reject technologies from any part of the standards process that are encumbered by software idea patents. I encourage you to start with the rejection of 'draft-housley-tls-authz-extns'. -- \ "Holy bouncing boiler-plated fits, Batman!" -- Robin | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf