Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:48:07 -0400 (EDT)
Dean Anderson <dean(_at_)av8(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Scott Brim wrote:
On 8/12/08 12:02 PM, TS Glassey allegedly wrote:
As to the IPR Page - it does not
allow for updates of already filed IPR Statement's to include new
IETF documents which violate the patent rights after the posting
of the IPR Notice.
How can a description of how to use a technology infringe on a
patent?
A standard isn't merely a description, as in a magazine article, but
also represents an industry agreement on the definition of a product.
A draft or WG could encourage persons to violate a patent, which is
indirect infringement. A draft or WG could define a product that is a
contributory infringement on a patent. The working group must take
care not to do these things.
The whole point of the IETF's IPR policy to make sure that people do
know of applicable patents.
An ipr disclosure might well indicate that the discloser was infringing
on someone else's ipr... That's not something that can be undone by
redacting the disclosure however assuming such a thing were possible.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf