Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam(_at_)benfinney(_dot_)id(_dot_)au> writes:
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.
With the corollary that, if *nobody* had to ever go through anything
to find out whether the technology is covered by the patent — for
example, if the patent holder granted everyone in the world a
royalty-free license to implement the described technology for any
purpose whatsoever without even knowing the patent existed — then the
technology would *not* be encumbered by that patent.
So "is covered by patents" is less relevant to my argument than "is
encumbered by patents".
--
\ "I was arrested today for scalping low numbers at the deli. |
`\ Sold a number 3 for 28 bucks." -- Steven Wright |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf