With all due respect, broad defensive non-assert clauses are quite
different from RF licenses. For an analysis of the differences, see the
article below:
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/lichtman/def-susp.pdf
Brian Carpenter said:
It's a defensive non-assert disclosure, which IMHO is equivalent to RF
for anyone who plays nicely. Actually a defensive non-assert may
indirectly *protect* a normal implementor, when you think about its
impact on a third party implementor who does try to assert a patent.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf