"Ted" == Ted Hardie <hardie(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> writes:
>> It seems to me that in some sense that disclosing a patent
>> should not make us less willing to use something. This is
>> especially true when the disclosing party is not obligated to
>> make the disclosure. Disclosing a patent along with an
>> implication that the patent will be enforced or that the patent
>> is high value should make us less willing to use a technology.
>> I'll even except that absent royalty-free licensing a typical
>> patent disclosure has the implication of desire to enforce the
>> patent.
Ted> I think it is very dangerous to infer anything like "desire
Ted> to enforce the patent". These are situations where you
Ted> actually have to read the specifics to know what it is going.
You are probably right. However I feel there is something
pathalogical going on in the open source community surrounding
patents. People are willing to use technologies that probably have
patents but are unwilling to use technologies that clearly have
patents and that have a long track record of not particularly being
enforced. I get worried when I see that spilling into the IETF.
Speaking for myself,
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf