On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 12:19:44PM +0000, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> > Because Verisign still has the option to provide a more detailed
> > Licensing Declaration ahead of the issuance, covering whatever claims
> > (if any) will be allowed.
> >
> > Why has Versign choosen not to provide a Licensing Declaration such as
> > option A ('no license'), B ('Free RAND'), C ('RAND') or E ('NOPE')?
> >
> > In failing to provide clarity to the internet engineering community,
> > Verisign is arguably obstructing much needed internet security
> > mechanisms.
>
> In my last note I explained why the decision was made to not update
> the disclosure: we do not know if the patent will be granted, and we
> do not know which, if any, of the claims will be allowed. We cannot
> provide a definitive licensing declaration for something that remains
> unknown.
No. Verisign has submitted a patent and is fully aware what the contents
of that submission are. Verisign is also in a position to decide what
the licensing will look like depending on the possible outcomes for the
USPTO process.
Verisign chooses not to do so, and thus frustrates the process.
Kind regards,
Job
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
