> > How can a description of how to use a technology infringe on a patent? > > A standard isn't merely a description, as in a magazine article, but > also represents an industry agreement on the definition of a product. A > draft or WG could encourage persons to violate a patent, which is > indirect infringement. A draft or WG could define a product that is a > contributory infringement on a patent. The working group must take care > not to do these things. As I said before, I agree with Atty Rosen's position and I hope it will prevail, I have run into lawyers who assert that source code distribution does infringe a patent. In the source code distribution examples that I know of, the distributors were very clear about the existance of patents in certain jurisdictions, and therefore seemed to have prudently (I would hope sufficiently prudently) avoided indirect infringement. But it also seems indisputable that there are indeed scenarios of imprudent actions which could invoke indirect or contributory infringement. There doesn't seem to be any basis for the assertion that it is entirely impossible for the IETF to ever engage in indirect or contributory infringement, no matter what actions it undertakes or how imprudent those actions are. So I think the IETF must define policies so to avoid the scenarios of imprudent actions. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf