Thierry Moreau <thierry.moreau@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > You seem to assume that patent rights are created by the IPR > disclosure, while they are created by the *patent* (in this case still > at the application stage) that you didn't study. I've seen you claim this a few times, and I wish to attempt to refute the argument. What we are evaluating here is how the patent status around the technology affects deployment and smooth operations of the Internet. While the claims in a patent (application) is relevant, it is not the only thing that is relevant. There are many patents out there that, if enforced, would make it impossible to implement core Internet protocols. I'm told the TLS protocol itself is covered by several patents, for example. We don't care as much about those patents because nobody appears to enforce them. That proves that the claims made in patents aren't the only thing we must look at. The actions taken by the patent filer, and the licensing conditions demanded by the patent filer is usually more interesting. There are organizations that use patents as a threat to sue other organizations. In these cases, the patent is not as important as the legal threat. It is possible to threaten to sue even if the patent is irrelevant to the case at hand, for anyone sufficiently familiar with the technology. That doesn't change the legal risk. When evaluating whether to implement a particular technology, you need to evaluate all the risks. The text of patent (applications) helps in the evaluation. My point is that the actions of patent holders is significantly more relevant. /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf