Subject: IPS and patents

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:57:28 -0500

> Actually, in the wg-guidelines document we have an example of a w.g.  
> ignoring all (real?) IPR-claims.  I bet this is because w.g. participants
> themselves have the IPR and aren't worried about the problem.
> 
> There seem to be many other cases similar to this.  I seem to vaguely
> remember a case with (IPS?) where some IETF participants had gone,
> researched authentication techniques used and boldly patented whatever
> seemed to be still "up for grabs", etc.etc.

IPS "ignoring all (real?) IPR-claims" ????  That's absolute, utter, and
complete nonsense, at least as far as IPS is concerned.  I wish the
folks advocating RF would invest more time and effort on getting their
facts straight, and less on unfounded speculation.  It is the case that
the specific technology area that caused major IPR problems in IPS
(strong authentication based on weak secrets) is patent-infested, but
it's also the case that the IPS WG came up with an adequate solution
that does not require obtaining rights to any patents.

Oh, and FWIW, IPS also ran the core portion of Russ's "algorithm" on
another patent with a RAND IPR notice on the IETF web site, and got
back an answer from an open source developer that the patent did not
appear to be a show-stopper because non-infringing open source
implementations could be made.

Thanks,
--David (IPS WG co-chair)

----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:08:27 +0200 (EET)

On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 [email-masked] wrote:
> complete nonsense, at least as far as IPS is concerned.  

If you look carefully, I was not saying that.  The specific w.g. in the 
first paragraph was CDI.

I'm sorry for not saying it more clearly.

IPS did lots and lots of work to *avoid* patents, for which I want
congratulate them.  A lesson it seemed to me from IPS (or more precisely,
the security mechanisms) were under a case of "folks going off to patent
everything still available, so that you just might be able to squeeze some
money off IPS (and other) implementors".

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings