>>>>> "Dean" == Dean Anderson <dean@xxxxxxx> writes:
Dean> 3. --There have been reports of similar issues in recent
Dean> lawsuit where the plaintiff patent-holder acted similarly to
Dean> Housley/Brown/Polk et al and was found to have engaged in
Dean> "aggravated litigation abuse". In that case, the Judge ruled
Dean> the patents unenforceable as a penalty for the deception of
Dean> the standards body in that case. (see
Dean> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/current/msg05089.html
Dean> and http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/07-1545.pdf)
Dean, it seems to me that if the patents are not enforceable then
there is no impediment to standardization. Help me understand how
this is a reason not to publish rather than an argument that
Redphone's IPR position is weaker than otherwise expected and thus it
might be more reasonable to publish.
Dean> 4. --There is no community consensus to proceed, nor any
Dean> demand from the community to have this protocol
Dean> standardized.
I think there is a desire from the community for a solution to the
problem that this solved.
Didn't Simon work on an implementation before the IPR concerns came up?
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf