At 10:05 AM -0400 8/5/09, Dean Anderson wrote:
Ned and Stephen,
If you mean the recent message traffic about the 'intention to remove'
extractor from a list of patented documents, that hasn't happened so far
and an 'intention to remove' doesn't mean it isn't patented. It is
possible that Certicom can later say it was a misunderstanding and that
the official documents were correct. As evidence of their view, they
have the official documents. As evidence of your view, you have an
unofficial and vague email message apparently contrary to the official
documents, and you will have to argue you based your decision on the
unofficial and vague message rather than the official IPR Disclosures.
I think one cannot get to a Qualcomm v. Broadcomm finding under such
circumstances.
I reiterate my support for the cited I-D. period.
Steve
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf