> From: Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> .. 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 ... 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
> .. developers thus mounts with every patent on a[n] .. idea.
All these points are true of things with physical instantiations, not just
software. Are you therefore advocating getting rid of patents in general?
> To allow a technology, encumbered by any known patent holder's
> monopoly, as .. any other status) is to give legitimacy to this system
> that directly harms development of all software,
RMS' (and the FSF's), hostility to the concept of software intellectual
property is well known. I wasn't impressed with it the first time I heard it
(circa 1982, IIRC), and I'm not impressed with it now.
If you all want to mount a campaign against software patents, feel free. I
think they are mostly pretty lame, and there have been many excesses allowed
by the US patent office (not sure of the status elsewhere).
However, please leave the IETF, as an organzation, out. (Individual IETF
contibutors are of course free to support you.) The IETF has orthagonal goals.
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf