If what you are asking for is that for every proposal / i-d that shows
up in the IETF, the IPR holder is automatically required to provide an
RF license, you really don't understand the reason people bother with
patents to begin with.
doesn't follow. it's entirely possible to understand why
As I recall, RAND was explicitly selected over RF because there are and
will be technologies that are interesting to incorporate in a
system-wide standard approach, and forcing RF terms would automatically
exclude those. There is enough of a bias in the participants toward RF
when available,
Marshall Rose wrote:
As I recall, RAND was explicitly selected over RF because
there are and
will be technologies that are interesting to incorporate in a
system-wide standard approach, and forcing RF terms would
automatically
exclude those. There is enough of a bias in the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Keith Moore writes:
If what you are asking for is that for every proposal / i-d that shows
up in the IETF, the IPR holder is automatically required to provide an
RF license, you really don't understand the reason people bother with
patents to begin with.
doesn't
doesn't follow. it's entirely possible to understand why people bother
with patents and still believe that IETF shouldn't support their use to
prevent free implementation of a standard.
There's an interesting dilemma here. I know of one case where some
IETFers tried *hard* -- and
On Wed, 29 May 2002 15:40:55 PDT, Tony Hain said:
Clearly from the responses I didn't make my point in that last
paragraph. The original note mentioned VRRP specifically, and in that
case the IPR holder didn't bring the proposal to the IETF. The way I
read that note, the Free Software
