At 01:08 PM 6/1/00 -0500, William H. Geiger III wrote:
In
<4(_dot_)3(_dot_)2(_dot_)7(_dot_)0(_dot_)20000531172252(_dot_)00b8e8d0(_at_)mail(_dot_)bayarea(_dot_)net>,
on 05/31/00
at 06:24 PM, Dave Crocker <dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com> said:
>You are both being far too optimistic. While it is possible that you are
> correct, it is equally possible -- and many would say more likely --
>that patents are, in fact, held or being prosecuted.
Well Dave I know several of the people in the PGP group at NAI and I don't
think that they would allow something like this.
And, of course, I was not trying to claim that NAI has any plans or would
take such action. For that matter the entire history of PGP leads to the
expectation that no such patent action would be taken.
However the question was about possibilities and implications, particularly
with respect to the import of being late in the standards process.
That is, the important piece of information is that there is nothing that
*forces* NAI (or any other participant) to disclose patent intent, and
there is already some precedent (small pseudo-legal pun intended) for
late-stage surfacing.
d/
=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker <dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
Brandenburg Consulting <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA