[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] > Darren, > .. > > I would also like to voice that I am very happy that David is co-charing > this group. The current discussion has shown how professional and ethical > his leadership of the WG is. There is nothing that would justify to step > back from this position. > > I also think that you are exaggerating the situation.
No, I'm not. And other people I've raised this subject with who have a long history of IETF involvement also believed the co-chair should be stepping down. Having him as co-chair removes transparency from the group. He has a clear financial involvement with the group's progress, now, so it is harder to believe any direction he might give would be without bias. The WG needs to be transparent in its operation and its direction must be beyond reproach in terms of conflicts of interest. It is good that David has stayed out of this discussion but if he is to continue with his professionalism, then he must step down as co-chair. I don't mind if he stays involved, but this WG cannot continue if one of the co-chairs belongs to a company that is involved in IPR action regarding the output of this WG. So I suppose that's the other option, dissolve the group if David doesn't or refuses to step down. It needs to be plainly obvious that this group is about developing technology for the Internet and not for any particular company. David's continued involvement as co-chair calls that into question. Given that Huawei has undoubtedly spent $X in this IPR action it is highly unlikely for them to change course and it would be a waste of our time and effort trying to get them to do so. > While I do not like the move by Huawei (and have voiced that), I also > think there is nothing evil per s? in this move. IMHO Huawei is simply > using an abusive patent system. This is a difference to someone abusing > non-abusive system. The primary thing to do is fight the abusive system > itself - as we in Europe try to avoid an US-like patent system over here. > As far as I know, even the US is reconsidering the current patent system. > I do not know about China, Australia and Japan, but my uninformed Having been involved with the patent process in Australia, I can tell you that if your patent lawyers are decent then you have significant obstacles to overcome to convince them that what you're doing is worthwhile. For starters, they will require it to be "novel" (i.e not obvious) and to be inventive, rather than just evolutionary. Whether the patent office itself is liek that, I don't know - this just might be the lawyers trying to stop you patenting something that is rubbish and will get thrown out later. > Back to this case: I still see lack of an innovation. Agreed. > The thing also smells bad if I look at the timing. Agreed. > Having said all this, please let me repeat that I prefer to have no > syslog RFC than to have one that is taken hostage by a nonsense patent > claim. Agreed. Darren _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
