Date:Thu, 30 May 2002 23:13:24 -0500
From:Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| So, what exactly do folks think is a practical kind of change to the
| current IETF policies?
Actually, like many things, I suspect that the underlying
On Fri, 31 May 2002 08:40:17 +0300, Pekka Savola said:
A bad thing IETF could do (but not the worst luckily :-) is to give a
signal Ok.. feel free to patent and give RAND licensing.. depending how
good it is, we might give it a standards status or we might not. That
_encourages_ to do
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Patents *in and of themselves* are not a Bad Thing. As far as the IETF goes,
the problem only arises when the patent is used to enforce a restrictive
licensing policy.
Can anybody think of a reason the IETF should object to patented tech *per se*,
as opposed to
On Fri, 31 May 2002 07:12:50 MDT, Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
In still other words, don't you remember the years of pain
Motorola/Codec caused PPP with those two bogus patents?
I guess what I was asking was how the IETF would feel about an organization
grabbing a patent on an
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In still other words, don't you remember the years of pain
Motorola/Codec caused PPP with those two bogus patents?
I guess what I was asking was how the IETF would feel about an organization
grabbing a patent on an algorithm and using it the same way the GNU crew
Date:Fri, 31 May 2002 09:03:43 -0400
From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| OK.. I'll bite - at what point should a not-yet-full standard expire to
| historic?
Pretty quickly. What the max period at DS should be I'm not sure, but
certainly no
On Fri, 31 May 2002 22:34:06 +0700, Robert Elz said:
Yes, that's true - but it would be even easier if the new one were a
full standard (even if the old one was too).
How would that work (having 2 full standards for the same exact thing)?
msg08440/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Date:Fri, 31 May 2002 11:48:24 -0400
From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| How would that work (having 2 full standards for the same exact thing)?
Depends on what the thing is, and how precisely you mean the same exact
thing.
In some cases it
On Fri, 31 May 2002 07:54:49 MDT, Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
In theory that could happen. It may have happened in practice with
the Ethernet patent. But what's the point? What is gained by
winning such a patent from government(s) compared to publishing
the same document,
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
The problem is that you can publish the same document, and then some
sleazeball competitor patents it, because the patent office does such
a poor job of researching prior art.
That seems to be based on the false notion that the patent
office checks even its own
| And the flip side - we've moved an amazingly SMALL number of documents
| to Full Standard, and only when we *think* we *fully* understand
things.
That's the problem. Or it is with the IPR issues. It is determining
whether
we can make that final step (widespread deployment is
I think the most effective thing would be to send a strong signal of some
kind: If you patent technologies and give non-RF licenses, _do not expect
the technology be supported in IETF at all_.
The problem is that there are enough companies out there that don't care.
There are some areas of
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 11:13:24PM -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:
To underscore the point that Marshall has been making:
The IETF has a strong preference to use unencumbered technologies. When
there is a choice between encumbered and unencumbered, the working group
includes encumbrance into
Bill Strahm wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2002, RJ Atkinson wrote:
On Thursday, May 30, 2002, at 09:48 , Melinda Shore wrote:
Here's one for starters: there's no guidance on how or whether to
treat differences in licensing terms for competing proposals. It
would be nice to be able to
On Fri, 31 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 31 May 2002 08:40:17 +0300, Pekka Savola said:
A bad thing IETF could do (but not the worst luckily :-) is to give a
signal Ok.. feel free to patent and give RAND licensing.. depending how
good it is, we might give it a standards
From: Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
.. If it takes a lawyer to write (or understand) licensing terms, they're
probably too complex ..
Something like the programmer who is his own IP lawyer has a fool for
a client applies.
In other words, if you need to sign a license, then it takes a
16 matches
Mail list logo
