On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:15:55 +1300
Brian E Carpenter <brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 2007-10-25 04:30, Sam Hartman wrote:
...
Simon> If you replace IBM with 'A Patent Troll', do you think
Simon> the same holds? > > I think that such behavior should
Simon> be presumed not to be a patent
troll. Patent trolls are not known forpromising to give away
royalty-free licenses.
They are also, in general, known for *not* particpating in
the standards process, precisely to avoid falling under
patent disclosure requirements. As far as non-participants
are concerned, nothing in our rules matters.
Right. Any IPR policy has to acknowledge the fact that relevant
patents can be owned by non-troll non-participants. (Too many
negatives there -- what I'm saying is that IETFers don't know of all
patents in the space, and there are real patent owners who care about
their patents, even though they aren't trolls.)
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf