In <413653DC(_dot_)20609(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com> Yakov Shafranovich
<research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com> writes:
Alan Hodgson wrote:
I suggest, therefore, that with the current license requirements, that this
standard be rejected and a non-encumbered alternative be considered.
Keep in mind that there is at least another alternative: ignore the
IPR claims as irrelevant and frivilous, and go ahead with the standard
anyway like the example given in RFC 3669.
Thanks to your (Yakov's) fine efforts, it does appear that the MS is
likely to be worse than the typical patent-the-obvious type patent,
but is much closer to what PHB calls a patent troll. They may well
have taken ideas discussed in the ASRG and, after the fact and without
telling anyone, patented them.
The problem is that even if Microsoft is being a patent troll, they
would be a patent troll with very deep pockets. If they chose to sue
for ignoring "their" IPR, they could bankrupt even medium to large
companies with lawyer fees. A cease and desist from a tiny patent
troll may well be ignored by most open source mirror sites, but I
doubt that it would be ignored if it came from MS.
-wayne