In message
<200205292104(_dot_)g4TL4WM03346(_at_)astro(_dot_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>,
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 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 persuaded their employers -- that an
algorithm they invented should be patent-free. But someone else
asserted that his patent *might* cover their invention -- and, since
their employers wouldn't profit from a patent-free protocol, they
wouldn't stand behind it if it went to court, or even to lawyers at 20
paces. That is: no patent and no profit => no strong backing.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
http://www.wilyhacker.com ("Firewalls" book)