At 10:04 AM -0700 4/28/01, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 08:07 AM 4/28/2001, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
>>a) Some people feel that the WALID patent in fact doesn't actually
>>affect IDNA, so if WALID attempts to enforce it, they will be
>>rejected by the courts.
>>
>>b) Some people feel that most or all of the patent itself will be
>>overturned because of prior art, some of which is listed in the
>>patent itself.
>
>
>The idealist in me thoroughly supports such a line of thinking and choice.
>
>The pragmatist in me has now had a couple of years doing some expert
>witness work, responding to infringement suits for patents that I
>feel were very, very poor.
Speaking as an individual, not as a document author, I fully agree
with Dave's assesment. I brought up the other options to to say that
they were what the WG should do, but to say what many people had been
speaking about off the list.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium
