With all due respect, broad defensive non-assert clauses are quite different from RF licenses. For an analysis of the differences, see the article below:
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/lichtman/def-susp.pdf Brian Carpenter said: It's a defensive non-assert disclosure, which IMHO is equivalent to RF for anyone who plays nicely. Actually a defensive non-assert may indirectly *protect* a normal implementor, when you think about its impact on a third party implementor who does try to assert a patent. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
