>>>>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 14:20:45 -0700, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> said: Phillip> 1) Patents happen, get over it. The problem is not that patents happen. The problem is IETF's position when patents happen. Clearly stated in http://www.fsf.org/news/reoppose-tls-authz-standard is that granted rights are inadequate. "... RedPhone has given a license to anyone who implements the protocol, but they still threaten to sue anyone that uses it. ..." While this may be fine in your world of big proprietary business, it is a severe problem for FOSS. Phillip> 2) Very few patents are so essential that they are worth more than Phillip> interoperability. The bar is not that of being "so essential". Phillip> 3) It follows that the only allowable patents are on non-essential aspects When a protocol is contaminated with patents it no longer serves the real purpose of a standard destined protocol. That of creating a level playing field for interaction of all participants. About 10 years ago, I brought all of this up in the context of patent contaminated WAP protocols in: The WAP Trap An Expose of the Wireless Application Protocol http://www.freeprotocols.org/PLPC/100014 Some of that same patent related logic applies in this case. Mohsen BANAN -- http://mohsen.banan.1.byname.net _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf