In message
<Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)4(_dot_)62(_dot_)0509081359170(_dot_)17352(_at_)sokol(_dot_)elan(_dot_)net>,
"william(at)elan
.net" writes:
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Dave Crocker wrote:
[Note: Not very long ago, I argued persuasively to a large and broad
movement within the IETF seeking to have the IETF adopt an anti-patent
position.
my memory is slipping worse that I thought.
i don't recall seeing evidence of the community's being persuaded.
It wasn't -- he's wrong.
Neverheless if I understand it, it has always been a position of IETF
to consider patented technology as being less preferable then patented
for standardization (ok, it also has a lot to do with kind of licese
patened technology has and if its available to everyone's use or not)
and that in case standardization of certain patented technology is
being considered IETF should look at if alternative to it that is
non-patented is available.
I didn't see the original note -- if it was from whom I think it was,
my killfile took care of that -- but for a more authoritative
description of the situation, see the first two paragraphs of Section 2
of RFC 3669.
Wearing my IPR WG hat and citing a product of that WG...
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf