Re: Second Last Call: <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt> (Sieve Notification Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

>>>>> "Pete" == Pete Resnick <[e-mail]> writes:
    Pete> decision about what ought to be done here. The community needs
    Pete> to come to a consensus about the right outcome and the
    Pete> leadership folks will judge that consensus and instantiate
    Pete> whatever actions need to be taken. It's certainly OK if you

At this point, I do not have a clear idea of what the set of outcomes
could be.  I think that they can include:
   1) not publishing the document.
   2) revising the document to remove/work-around the encumbered work
   3) some legal action to attend to anul the patent (which might or
      might not succeed).
   4) go ahead and publish things as they are.


I am concerned that the individual may be scapegoated here, but I also
do not buy that they didn't understand things.   
The company spent money to file a patent, and they hired someone to do
this, and they certainly knew where the "invention" was documented.  

There is a need for a consequence for not following the IPR.
I read the document, but not the patent, so I don't see what's so novel
about it all, and I also don't know how hard it would be to work around.

My preference is to some method to remove any value the patent might
have. 

-- 
]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [e-mail] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
	               then sign the petition.