--On Friday, March 06, 2009 14:58 -0800 Lawrence Rosen
<lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
> I do not understand why an "Experimental RFC" is different in
> principle from a "standards track RFC" when it comes to
> patents, since even experimental use of patented technology is
> an infringement. However,...
Larry, just to try to answer the implied question...
Remember that the RFC series contains many documents that are
not standards, some of which have not significantly passed
through the IETF and some of which few people would actual
consider implementing -- not because of patent restrictions, but
because of what they are. To try to suggest that nothing should
be published in the series that has any encumbrances would be a
huge step, possibly justified on the basis of a philosophical
war on patents, but hard to justify on any other basis -- after
all, reading about an encumbered technology for purposes of
education, etc., is not an infringement, as others (and I think
you) have explained on this list more than once.
So the answer to your question is that Experimental RFCs are
different from Standards Track ones because, among other things,
there is no implicit IETF recommendation of implementation and
deployment of the technology and because part of the purpose of
publication is educational. In addition, while I take your
point that experimental use is infringing (my recollection is
that there are some fine points there if the use is strictly to
learn about the invention, but you are the expert), no one sane
would try to deploy a product strictly on the basis of an
Experimental Protocol publication (with or without patent
involvement). I would also imagine that, all other things being
equal, some people's risk assessment would be different for
small-scale experimental uses than for larger-scale product
development and deployment.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf