Re: [Asrg] ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam patents: Partial list )

Vern Paxson <vern@icir.org> Sun, 15 June 2003 08:19 UTC

Message-Id: <200306150701.h5F71hWT033254@jaguar.icir.org>
To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
Cc: 'Paul Judge' <paul.judge@ciphertrust.com>, 'Kee Hinckley' <nazgul@somewhere.com>, "'Asrg@ietf.org'" <Asrg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Asrg] ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam patents: Partial list )
In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 14 Jun 2003 09:34:09 PDT.
From: Vern Paxson <vern@icir.org>
Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 00:01:43 -0700

> If this is a research organization it does not make sense to require an
> undertaking to require release of IPR before the utility of the proposal in
> question is examined.
> ...
> There is no point in approaching an IPR owner to ask for a license before
> you have decided whether you are even going to use it at all, let alone what
> you are going to do.

But that's not the requirement.  The requirement is to disclose knowledge
of the existence of IPR, not to try to secure a license to it.

Given that, do you still disagree with the requirement?

		Vern
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

RE: [Asrg] ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam paten… Paul Judge
RE: [Asrg] ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam paten… Paul Judge
RE: [Asrg] ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam paten… Kee Hinckley
Re: [Asrg] ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam paten… Vern Paxson
RE: [Asrg] ASRG IPR policy (was RE: US Spam paten… Harald Tveit Alvestrand