On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:15:55 +1300
Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2007-10-25 04:30, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> ...
> > Simon> If you replace IBM with 'A Patent Troll', do you think
> > Simon> the same holds? > > I think that such behavior should
> > Simon> be presumed not to be a patent
> > troll. Patent trolls are not known forpromising to give away
> > royalty-free licenses.
>
> They are also, in general, known for *not* particpating in
> the standards process, precisely to avoid falling under
> patent disclosure requirements. As far as non-participants
> are concerned, nothing in our rules matters.
>
Right. Any IPR policy has to acknowledge the fact that relevant
patents can be owned by non-troll non-participants. (Too many
negatives there -- what I'm saying is that IETFers don't know of all
patents in the space, and there are real patent owners who care about
their patents, even though they aren't trolls.)
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
