At 2:18 PM -0400 10/21/04, Michael Richardson wrote:
Bill> Many IPR claims are bogus.
yet, I've tried to have this conversation SEVERAL times in the IPsec
WG wrt both the Certicom claim and the Microsoft NAT-T claims.
In both cases, I've been told that I'm not a lawyer.
Which is still true, I hope. I don't believe in either case that the
WG was making a decision on what technology to standardize on based
on the patent issues. In the case of the Certicom claim to all
Diffie-Hellman MODP groups, the WG has not changed its standard. On
the NAT-T claims, the WG went ahead.
This discussion should focus on when there are IPR claims that
impinge on the most-desired technology of the group, and the
next-most-desired technology is significantly technically inferior.
There are probably a small number of cases in the IETF where this has
happened, but not nearly as many as the folks who are claiming the
IETF's imminent demise would suggest.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf