Eric Burger wrote: > I specifically applied for patents underlying the technology behind RFC > 4722/RFC 5022 and RFC 4730 specifically to prevent third parties, who > are not part of the IETF process, from extracting royalties from someone > who implements MSCML or KPML. That was a waste of your time and money. Publication of those inventions by you, at zero cost to you and others, would have been sufficient to prevent someone else from trying to patent them. Next time, get good advice from a patent lawyer on how to achieve your goals without paying for a patent. > Remember, just because *you* do not have IPR in an IETF standard does > not mean someone *else* has IPR in the standard. If that someone else > does not participate in the IETF or, for that matter, happen to not > participate in the work group or, in reality, are not editors of a > document, they can fully apply their IPR against the standard once it > issues. Right! And that's why every one of the FOSS-compatible patent grants to IETF, W3C or OASIS includes defensive termination provisions. We also want to protect standards against patent threats by third parties, and defensive provisions are consistent with FOSS licenses. For those here who keep asking for protection against patents in standards, there is no more effective technique than through a revised IPR policy that prohibits patent-encumbered standards from gaining the IETF brand in the first place. /Larry > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Burger [mailto:eburger@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 2:16 PM > To: Keith Moore; lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Patents can be for good, not only evil > > I would offer that patents are NOT categorically evil. > > Phil Zimmerman has applied for patents in ZRTP, specifically to ensure > that all implementations fully conform with the specification. Cost to > license for a conformant specification? $0. Cost to not really provide > privacy but claim to be implementing ZRTP? Costly! > > I specifically applied for patents underlying the technology behind RFC > 4722/RFC 5022 and RFC 4730 specifically to prevent third parties, who > are not part of the IETF process, from extracting royalties from someone > who implements MSCML or KPML. Cost to license? $0. Cost to sue > someone who infringes said third-party's IPR? That depends, but at > least we raised the cost of shutting down an IETF standard. > > Remember, just because *you* do not have IPR in an IETF standard does > not mean someone *else* has IPR in the standard. If that someone else > does not participate in the IETF or, for that matter, happen to not > participate in the work group or, in reality, are not editors of a > document, they can fully apply their IPR against the standard once it > issues. > > I like to have a little inoculation against that situation in the stuff > I submit. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 4:04 PM > To: lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: When is using patented technology appropriate? > > Lawrence Rosen wrote: > > Keith Moore wrote: > > > >> For several reasons, it is difficult to imagine an IETF-wide > >> procedure that allows the existence of a patent to trump other > >> considerations of protocol feasibility and deployability: > >> > > > > Who suggested otherwise? It is not the existence of the patent that > > matters, but its unavailability under license terms that allow > > implementation in > > *any* software. > > > _and_ its validity, _and_ its applicability, both of which can be > subjective and difficult to determine conclusively without long delays > and excessive expense. so we have to make judgments. and by "we" I > mean individuals participating in IETF, not IETF itself. > > The more feasible and deployable the protocol, the more important will > > > be FOSS implementations. > > > only relative to other protocols in the same space. > > granted that patents are the bane of any open standards-making > organization, because patents do exactly the opposite of what open > standards do. at the same time, we can't let FUD about patents become a > denial of service attack to IETF efforts. > > Keith > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain > information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated > entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or > legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual > or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, > and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by > email and then delete it. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf