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!