On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 14:20:45 -0700, "Hallam-Baker, Phillip"
<pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> said:
Phillip> 1) Patents happen, get over it.
The problem is not that patents happen. The
problem is IETF's position when patents happen.
Clearly stated in
http://www.fsf.org/news/reoppose-tls-authz-standard
is that granted rights are inadequate.
"... RedPhone has given a license to anyone who
implements the protocol, but they still threaten
to sue anyone that uses it. ..."
While this may be fine in your world of big
proprietary business, it is a severe problem
for FOSS.
Phillip> 2) Very few patents are so essential that they are worth more than
Phillip> interoperability.
The bar is not that of being "so essential".
Phillip> 3) It follows that the only allowable patents are on non-essential
aspects
When a protocol is contaminated with patents it no
longer serves the real purpose of a standard
destined protocol.
That of creating a level playing field for
interaction of all participants.
About 10 years ago, I brought all of this up in
the context of patent contaminated WAP protocols
in:
The WAP Trap
An Expose of the Wireless Application Protocol
http://www.freeprotocols.org/PLPC/100014
Some of that same patent related logic applies in
this case.
Mohsen BANAN -- http://mohsen.banan.1.byname.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf