On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
> While issuing a ton of patent exclusions for something like this would be 
> rather poor, I would frankly rather have that then a spec that doesn't get 
> any attention from a party that's clearly relevant only to have patents come 
> up /after/ the spec is published and implemented.  
 Agreed, but for that we need to go through rechartering this group to include 
the new deliverable (i.e., to give everyone a fair chance to say if they are 
willing to give up their IPR around this). I think your concerns are fair.

Reply via email to