>>>>> "Pete" == Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Pete> decision about what ought to be done here. The community needs
Pete> to come to a consensus about the right outcome and the
Pete> leadership folks will judge that consensus and instantiate
Pete> whatever actions need to be taken. It's certainly OK if you
At this point, I do not have a clear idea of what the set of outcomes
could be. I think that they can include:
1) not publishing the document.
2) revising the document to remove/work-around the encumbered work
3) some legal action to attend to anul the patent (which might or
might not succeed).
4) go ahead and publish things as they are.
I am concerned that the individual may be scapegoated here, but I also
do not buy that they didn't understand things.
The company spent money to file a patent, and they hired someone to do
this, and they certainly knew where the "invention" was documented.
There is a need for a consequence for not following the IPR.
I read the document, but not the patent, so I don't see what's so novel
about it all, and I also don't know how hard it would be to work around.
My preference is to some method to remove any value the patent might
have.
--
] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
then sign the petition.
Attachment:
pgpN485VsDQnN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf