Re: Ballot: The PPP Encryption Control Protocol (ECP) to Proposed Standard

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

At 5:27 PM 3/21/96, Steve Coya wrote:
>Personally, I still maintain approving these I-Ds that do NOT contain
>any information pertaining to Motorola Patent Claims (they don't even
>contain the word "patent") is not a good thing, and not having the
>point-of-contact in the I-Ds do a dis-service to those folks who will
>be implementing the protocols.

The problem here, so Dave Rand told me once upon a time, that under patent
law if a paper mentions a patent claim, then in a court that is deciding
the applicability of the claim, this is prima face evidence that the claim
is applicable. To add (as you just suggested be done for Mobile IP) an
appendeix stating that Motorola asserts that their claims apply, is one
thing, perhaps; to say anything more is prima face evidence that Motorola's
bogus claims are not bogus.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If it is sufficient to
include a note with IP mobility, when we send it to the RFC editor, saying
"please add this appendix saying Gonzo Inc asserts that they have a valid
claim, please talk to them", then it is sufficient to do the same with PPP
CCP. If it is not good enough for CCP, then I want a real good explanation
of why it's good for IP mobility?

BTW, "bogus" is a kind term in the context of this draft...

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
It has recently been discovered that research causes cancer in rats.