Scott W Brim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> However, there appears to be rough consensus emerging that an IPR
> assertion is acceptable if any of the following are true:
>
> - a license is explicitly not required.
>
> - a license is explicitly free with no restrictions.
>
> - a license is explic
As Ted says, the IETF should stay out of passing judgment on the
validity of claims and/or fighting patents. It's really way outside of
our charter. Anyone can set up a separate organization to do that if
he/she wants.
However, this case is just the worst of many. It is abundantly clear
that th
> ... I believe that policy concerns are best addressed by
> ISOC. Because ISOC's role in the standards process is at one
> remove, it can work to educate legislatures and
> administrations without appearing to favor one participant
> over the other.
That sounds wonderful, except that ISOC
In this message, I am speaking as an individual participant in the IETF.
For those following the discussion over the past few months, it must
be pretty obvious that I believe that the IETF's role in the world is
distinct from that of the Internet Society, and that I believe that
policy concerns are
In this message, I am speaking as the Area Advisor who was responsible
for MARID.
The reasons for closing the MARID working group are set out
in http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg05054.html.
Fundamentally, the working group chairs and I believed that the group
was very unlikely to reac
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 01:20:33PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Did M$ scan IETF for patent ideas?
> When was this first written, if you have doc with date, you can
> challenge/share the patent.
Thanks for the hint.
M$ was scanning the ASRG-RMX mailing list in fall 2003, because
they repl
Did M$ scan IETF for patent ideas?
When was this first written, if you have doc with date, you can challenge/share the
patent.
Maggie
>
> From: Hadmut Danisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2004/10/05 Tue PM 12:53:03 EDT
> To: "Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject
On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 04:06:18AM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> When Meng Weng Wong was thinking about how to
> evangelize SPF, his first instinct was to bypass IETF and go straight
> to the open-source MTA developers -- I had to lobby hard to persuade
> him to go through the RFC process, and
Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If it was possible to set up things in such a way that it was easy for a
> company to declare "no first use" on a patent in the space of standards
> implementation, and very disruptive for a company to renege on such a
> promise (for instance, by ha
On 5-okt-04, at 18:22, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I have not been able to get any patent lawyers interested in
pursuing/spearheading this train of thought.
It is generally accepted that the turkey gets no say when deciding the
christmas day menu.
_
Eliot,
> > I am trying to imagine any sort of serious protocol
> > development process that used that sort of logic and then
> > had acceptance and/or success.
> Here-in lies the rub. If you try to use our rules of
> protocol development to develop an organization we'll never
> get there.
--On 5. oktober 2004 10:35 -0400 "Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I do think we (the community) have a chance at finding ways to render
those patents that crop up in the commons harmless.
And what ways would those be?
One posting I found in
--On Tuesday, 05 October, 2004 13:59 +0200 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John,
>
> I would like to question some of your assumptions below.
>
> --On 3. oktober 2004 14:46 -0400 John C Klensin
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Since the discussion about scenarios for str
Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I do think we (the community) have a chance at finding ways to render those
> patents that crop up in the commons harmless.
And what ways would those be?
--
http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond
___
John,
I would like to question some of your assumptions below.
--On 3. oktober 2004 14:46 -0400 John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Since the discussion about scenarios for structuring the
administrative arrangements seem to be settling down, it is
probably time to try raising some questions
Hi Patrice,
I noticed the Internet-Draft that you posted regarding IETF
Administrative Restructuring, and I have a few comments on it,
speaking as one interested member of the IETF community to another.
For those who have not seen Patrice's draft, it can be found at:
http://www.ietf.org/internet
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> the MARID WG was shut down because it was unable to reach consensus.
>
> That is, indeed, a failure of the IETF. But not the one you argue.
On the contrary, recognizing the hopeless lack of consensus and
refusing to continue dancing to the tune of various intere
Since I'm not at my best in being clear this week..
I agree very much with ESR that current US IPR practices are a huge
problem, and that the IETF needs to deal with these issues in a rational
fashion.
Unlike ESR, I think that it's possible to find such a rational fashion
within the formal
--On tirsdag, oktober 05, 2004 00:57:22 -0400 "Eric S. Raymond"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
1. Nothing about the reorganization is going to make IETF
standards be more useful or be produced significantly more
quickly. Hence, reorganization has nothing to do with
Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> We're not out to rid the world of patent-laden work, nor are we out to
> make patent owners rich. The IETF exists to promulgate relevant and
> correct standards to the Internet Community, and educate people on their
> intended safe use.
You'll talk yourself r
Eric,
We're not out to rid the world of patent-laden work, nor are we out to
make patent owners rich. The IETF exists to promulgate relevant and
correct standards to the Internet Community, and educate people on their
intended safe use. There is a fine balance to be had between the two
extrem
21 matches
Mail list logo
