Hi Steve,
On 2009-02-11 08:19, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:59:52 -0800
> "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
....
>> Why don't we organize to answer the patent claim infringement issues
>> like professionals do? Ask technical experts. Consult a patent
>> attorney. Render expert opinions.
>
> Absolutely -- that's everyone's right, privilege, and (arguably) duty.
> I haven't looked at it myself because I have no particular interest in
> it at the moment, but this is definitely the proper course. It's also
> perfectly proper to post analyses to influence others -- that was done
> years ago in IPsec to reassure people that a particular patent was
> unlikely to be enforceable.
I think there are good reasons why the IETF (or the ISOC, or
the IETF Trust) should not do this as a body. Basically we've set
things up to minimise any risk of the IETF, ISOC or the IETF Trust
being exposed to any kind of liability. That's why standards
track RFCs contain a disclaimer of warranty ("This document and the
information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis...)
which covers IPR as well as fitness for purpose.
That said, it is indeed the proper course for implementors
and/or groupings of implementors to do this, and there's
no obvious reason such information can't be posted via IETF
mechanisms.
IMHO, IANAL.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf