Subject: Re: IPR Re: IETF 54 calendar (fwd)

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 01:22:03 +0200

In message <[email-masked]>, Keith Moore writes:
>> If what you are asking for is that for every proposal / i-d that shows
>> up in the IETF, the IPR holder is automatically required to provide an
>> RF license, you really don't understand the reason people bother with
>> patents to begin with.
>
>doesn't follow.  it's entirely possible to understand why people bother 
>with patents and still believe that IETF shouldn't support their use to
>prevent free implementation of a standard.
>
There's an interesting dilemma here.  I know of one case where some 
IETFers tried *hard* -- and persuaded their employers -- that an 
algorithm they invented should be patent-free.  But someone else 
asserted that his patent *might* cover their invention -- and, since 
their employers wouldn't profit from a patent-free protocol, they 
wouldn't stand behind it if it went to court, or even to lawyers at 20 
paces.  That is:  no patent and no profit => no strong backing.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com ("Firewalls" book)

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 19:38:10 -0400

> paces.  That is:  no patent and no profit => no strong backing.

one of the major problems with the patent system is that it all but
forces competition even when it's not desirable.

which is why I don't blame companies (or individuals!) for patenting
things and licensing them on a "don't sue us, we won't sue you" basis.
(which seems to me to be entirely compatible with RF)

Keith