Re: References to Redphone's "patent"
Thierry Moreau <thierry.moreau@connotech.com> Fri, 13 February 2009 19:53 UTC
Return-Path: <thierry.moreau@connotech.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDFA33A6DC5 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:53:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z6ueQAZDRrwY for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:53:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp105.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp105.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.36.83]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C679C3A6E36 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:53:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 18174 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2009 19:53:25 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO connotech.com) (thierry.moreau@209.148.165.15 with plain) by smtp105.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2009 19:53:25 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: 9Zn6F0IVM1kbwU.uhAXRFFGendrQ__GpI_5j0gLzRXgYO8r7rV.yDW5Ne00ZeJbwyg--
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
Message-ID: <4995D1EE.70900@connotech.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:02:54 -0500
From: Thierry Moreau <thierry.moreau@connotech.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
Subject: Re: References to Redphone's "patent"
References: <87skmknar8.fsf@ashbery.wjsullivan.net> <tslfxiiuzs5.fsf@live.mit.edu> <1F52870FDF6C4903800E145AAEB9FAF7@LROSENTOSHIBA> <4995B9B2.5040702@connotech.com> <AB05B60FFA04487A82D32669F96F2681@LROSENTOSHIBA>
In-Reply-To: <AB05B60FFA04487A82D32669F96F2681@LROSENTOSHIBA>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:53:19 -0000
Lawrence: I think we are close to intellectual agreement([0]), but see below. (Nothing to do about my personal position as an [---] advice provider.) Lawrence Rosen wrote: > Thierry Moreau wrote: > >>Check by yourself, I do not provide >>professional advice in here. > > > And that's why I made my suggestion that we do these analyses in a > professional manner! Too many patent-savvy attorneys (and their companies?) > expect the community to decide these things in a random fashion. The > IETF--collectively--needs professional advice, including from you. > > I will allow that you speak for yourself and offer no guarantees or > warranties. But expert attorneys need to give us their expert opinions about > the effects of specific patents on our specific work. > > That's why I'm so irritated that the previous IPR WG, since disbanded > (fortunately), refused even to discuss a patent policy for IETF. Of course > such studied ignorance can lead to community displays of confusion and > anger. Hence the FSF campaign and others like it; entirely justified. > Maybe s/justified/to be expected/? I don't quite follow how the FSF campaign may be justified if the underlying patent application details has been ignored. If among the high volume e-mails triggerd by the FSF there was one based on "finer investigation and analysis", I would expect the IESG to count this one as an IETF community participation. Simon, as a GnuTLS project leader, stated he did not read the patent. You seem to suggest that "studied ignorance" should be fixed at the IETF/IESG institution level, and until done, the institution gets what it deserves (i.e. is hurt by FSF and othe campaigns as expected). I'm comfortable with either way, fighting studied ignorance at the participant or institution level. - Thierry Moreau [0] "intellectual agreement" is distinct from "agreement" as understood by a lawyer and "agreement" in the terminology used in UP patent application 11/234,404 - by the way it's Friday afternoon!
- FSF's comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns John Sullivan
- Re: FSF's comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns Willie Gillespie
- Re: FSF's comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns Paul Hoffman
- Re: FSF's comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns Sam Hartman
- References to Redphone's "patent" Lawrence Rosen
- Re: FSF's comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns ned+ietf
- RE: FSF's comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns Powers Chuck-RXCP20
- Re: References to Redphone's "patent" Thierry Moreau
- RE: References to Redphone's "patent" Lawrence Rosen
- RE: References to Redphone's "patent" Ted Hardie
- Re: References to Redphone's "patent" Thierry Moreau
- How we got here, RE: References to Redphone's "pa… Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: How we got here, RE: References to Redphone's… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: How we got here, RE: References to Redphone's… Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: How we got here, RE: References to Redphone's… Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: How we got here, RE: References to Redphone's… Michael Richardson
- Re: FSF's comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns Byung-Hee HWANG
- Re: FSF's comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns John Sullivan