On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
This note is rather lighter in weight and tone than its predecessor, and
seems like a good direction.
Can you explain your reasoning why this seems like "a good direction".
Not being a lawyer, I can't comment on the legal details of IPR cases. What I
am looking at is the understandability of a statement. A lawyer that I was
speaking with recently told me that the IETF IPR policy is ambiguous; one must
file IPR statements for standards, but not for informational documents. We
wound up wandering through the details of legal statements, in which I felt he
was working pretty hard to make words stand on their heads.
To my small and non-legal mind, the simplest statement is the clearest, and
what the average IETFer needs is clarity. The policy is, as far as I know, that
if I have or personally and reasonably know that my company has IPR on a
document or statement of any category, I need to say so and encourage my
company to say so; if someone else does, I am encouraged to make the fact
known. Making that statement in any more complex way gives the appearance of
complexity of thought, and this particular lawyer was finding
complexity/ambiguity where no complexity/ambiguity exists.
KISS.
For example, how would the new Note Well improve our situation in
the Versign DNSSEC case?
Link to patent:
http://domainnamewire.com/2012/10/05/verisign-files-patent-application-for-way-of-transfering-hosting-on-dnssec-domains/
Comparison of Patent vs IETF work: http://ubuntuone.com/4Bz1BqOsGMkTUQgViEL0rz
Paul
----------------------------------------------------
The ignorance of how to use new knowledge stockpiles exponentially.
- Marshall McLuhan