In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Keith Moore writes:
>> If what you are asking for is that for every proposal / i-d that shows
>> up in the IETF, the IPR holder is automatically required to provide an
>> RF license, you really don't understand the reason people bother with
>> patents to begin with.
>
>doesn't follow. it's entirely possible to understand why people bother
>with patents and still believe that IETF shouldn't support their use to
>prevent free implementation of a standard.
>
There's an interesting dilemma here. I know of one case where some
IETFers tried *hard* -- and persuaded their employers -- that an
algorithm they invented should be patent-free. But someone else
asserted that his patent *might* cover their invention -- and, since
their employers wouldn't profit from a patent-free protocol, they
wouldn't stand behind it if it went to court, or even to lawyers at 20
paces. That is: no patent and no profit => no strong backing.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
http://www.wilyhacker.com ("Firewalls" book)
