Formal IAB appeal: IESG paralysis and inactivity

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Fri, 03 March 1995 01:58 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17578; 2 Mar 95 20:58 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17574; 2 Mar 95 20:58 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20090; 2 Mar 95 20:58 EST
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17567; 2 Mar 95 20:58 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17563; 2 Mar 95 20:58 EST
Received: from stilton.cisco.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20085; 2 Mar 95 20:58 EST
Received: (fred@localhost) by stilton.cisco.com (8.6.8+c/8.6.5) id RAA00379; Thu, 2 Mar 1995 17:58:50 -0800
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 17:58:50 -0800
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <199503030158.RAA00379@stilton.cisco.com>
To: Christian.Huitema@sophia.inria.fr
Subject: Formal IAB appeal: IESG paralysis and inactivity
Cc: iab@isi.edu, iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US

Please be advised that although Steve Coya has apparently not sent a copy
of Motorola's letter agreeing to provide terms on their compression patents
by 12/31/94, I told him the contents of the letter. He constructively has
as much information as anyone else does. Motorola is stalling (IMHO),
and the IETF under 1602 has little recourse.

Having said which, our legal counsel indicates that there is a problem
with the legal directives in 1602 - when a party can assert the existence of
a patent and provide neither proof of existence nor cooperation in
resolution, the party is on shaky ground. My boss and I have discussed
perhaps having Cisco fund the ISOC's getting better counsel and a better
plan for dealing with patents and other intellectual property. Is there
interest on your part in persuing this?

Fred