ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Consensus Call for draft-housley-tls-authz

2009-03-10 19:11:37
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Institute the policy as you suggest and you have just given the patent
trolls the power to place an indefinite hold on any IETF proposal.

I have never suggested placing any kind of hold on any IETF proposal.
Propose all you want. Publish the proposal. Try to convince people that it
is a good proposal. Establish a WG to design away....

An IPR Disclosure has been filed in accordance with standard IETF procedure.


What I've suggested is due diligence to determine the implications of that
disclosure. Only THEN is publication as an IETF RFC justified. Experimental
or not, industry standard or not, an IETF RFC encourages companies to
implement and use the technology, and that may be patent infringement.

Or it may be a bogus IPR disclosure that intelligent people could decide to
ignore.

I am certainly not giving patent trolls any more power than they deserve. In
fact, I hope to dispose of this particular TLS patent troll once we get a
small group of patent attorneys to analyze the IPR disclosure like
professionals do it. 

Just like W3C does it. They don't give patent trolls power either.

/Larry



-----Original Message-----
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 1:24 PM
To: lrosen(_at_)rosenlaw(_dot_)com; Paul Hoffman; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Consensus Call for draft-housley-tls-authz

Institute the policy as you suggest and you have just given the patent
trolls the power to place an indefinite hold on any IETF proposal.

So instead of extorting payment for exercise of the claims they hold the
standard hostage.


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 3:28 PM
To: 'Paul Hoffman'; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Consensus Call for draft-housley-tls-authz

Lawrence Rosen wrote:
If we use different terminology to identify this IETF RFC,
how does
that
change anything?

Paul Hoffman replied:
Because you earlier complained about IETF standards having known
patent issues. Now we are talking about experimental protocols that
are not standards.

And I am saying that it doesn't make a bit of difference
legally. If you infringe for experimental reasons, that is
still infringement.

I don't think we should publish under the IETF imprimatur if there are
*unresolved* known patent issues about which ignorant and
cautious people continue to speculate blindly. Why should any
of us waste time and money on IETF and commercial and FOSS
"experiments" if they may cost us too much money downstream?

Its authors are free to publish draft-housley-tls-authz
already. Google is free to index that document already. Why
do you insist upon granting it an IETF RFC status without
first deciding if the disclosed patent claims are likely bogus?

/Larry


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 10:31 AM
To: lrosen(_at_)rosenlaw(_dot_)com; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Consensus Call for draft-housley-tls-authz

At 10:22 AM -0700 3/10/09, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
If we use different terminology to identify this IETF RFC,
how does
that
change anything?

Because you earlier complained about IETF standards having known
patent issues. Now we are talking about experimental protocols that
are not standards.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>