Subject: Re: [idn] Assessing patent "validity"

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 18:53:28 -0700

At 11:40 AM 5/7/2001, Keith Moore wrote:
>Dave Crocker writes...
> >          An IETF working group lacks competence for such a
> > discussion.  Nothing we can do will change that.
>
>
>what we have to do in IETF is reach consensus.  we might reach
consensus
>because we mostly think that our solution doesn't infringe the patent
at
>all, or we might reach consensus because we mostly think that our
solution
>doesn't infringe portions of the patent that will hold up in court.
and
>different people can have different reasons for supporting it.

Evidently you misunderstood both of my major points:

         1.  The IETF has no competence at assessing legal merit in an
intellectual property conflict.

Any effort to factor such issues into a decision are sure to be done
badly.

(Your assessment of the players in the legal process is accurate for
some
players and wholly off the mark for others, of course.)

         2.  Passing a standard that has ambiguous and/or contested
intellectual property claims, or ambiguous/contested licensing terms, is
certain -- as in, guaranteed -- to scare vendors off from implementing
the
standard.

d/

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 01:29:17 -0400

> Evidently you misunderstood both of my major points:

and evidently you misunderstood mine.
 
> intellectual property conflict.

true.  but nevertheless, individuals within the IETF, who possess 
varying degrees of competence at assessing both the legal merit of 
a patent and the applicability of a patent toward a potential standard,
*DO* use whatever competence they possess (or lack thereof) to determine
whether to support a consensus toward that standard.

this is in fact the best we can do. 

> certain -- as in, guaranteed -- to scare vendors off from implementing the
> standard.

and this will also get factored in to whether individuals decide to 
contribute toward a consensus.

Keith