Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu> writes:
I'd appreciate your evidence for both of these claims. 1) That the
technology is covered by patents.
Whether the technology is covered by a patent, I can't say, as I'm not
a judge in a patent-violation suit.
I claimed that the technology is *encumbered* by a patent, in that
there is a patent claimed on the technology that is at least similar
to the implementation, encumbering the technology and those who would
implement it with the prospect of a very expensive law suit to
determine whether the patent actually covers the technology.
My evidence for that begins here
<URL:http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg45874.html>.
2) That those claiming these patents have a history of enforcing.
Perhaps "have a history of" was a poor choice of words — I wrote that
message before reading in detail the discussions here. It is
nevertheless evident from the above that the patent-holders in this
case are working to enforce the patent, such that implementors will
need license from them.
That's quite at odds with promoting a technical standard, even though
it may be labelled "experimental", for implementation by parties
interested in interoperability with the technology.
--
\ "If nothing changes, everything will remain the same." -- |
`\ Barne's Law |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf