Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'd appreciate your evidence for both of these claims. 1) That the > technology is covered by patents.
Whether the technology is covered by a patent, I can't say, as I'm not a judge in a patent-violation suit. I claimed that the technology is *encumbered* by a patent, in that there is a patent claimed on the technology that is at least similar to the implementation, encumbering the technology and those who would implement it with the prospect of a very expensive law suit to determine whether the patent actually covers the technology. My evidence for that begins here <URL:http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg45874.html>. > 2) That those claiming these patents have a history of enforcing. Perhaps "have a history of" was a poor choice of words — I wrote that message before reading in detail the discussions here. It is nevertheless evident from the above that the patent-holders in this case are working to enforce the patent, such that implementors will need license from them. That's quite at odds with promoting a technical standard, even though it may be labelled "experimental", for implementation by parties interested in interoperability with the technology. -- \ "If nothing changes, everything will remain the same." -- | `\ Barne's Law | _o__) | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
