Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-01.txt

From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:19:52 -0800

> If you don't like the I-D, the best response is to argue 
> against it on the working group list (which I assume you're 
> doing) and to draft and submit your own I-D.

That's precisely what I tried to start with the bullet points I
submitted to the IETF IPR WG yesterday.  I've heard only a few
substantive reactions, a lot of ad hominem attacks, quite a bit of
gibberish about how patents work, and enough "this is how we work"
missives to fill a dumpster.

I'm all for ignoring the current draft and starting a meaningful
dialogue about a true RF patent policy.  I welcome everyone's
*constructive* comments.

/Larry

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:48:18 -0500

> I'm all for ignoring the current draft and starting 
> a meaningful dialogue about a true RF patent policy.
	If you want to talk about something else, then fine. *YOU*
ignore the draft, but understand that there are others here who are, in
fact, interested in the subject it covers. If you look back a bit in
history, you'll see that this entire cathartic experience of name
calling, ad hominem attacks, etc. was sparked by a question that I now
almost regret having asked about how a Working Group should deal with
discussions of patents or patent applications. (i.e. Who do I tell?)
This subject is independent of whatever the IETF policy may be regarding
RF, RAND, etc.
	Just because draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-01.txt isn't what
*you* want to talk about doesn't suggest that it should be ignored by
others.

	bob wyman