Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Sat, 23 October 2004 16:05 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04910; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:05:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CLObP-0007pT-G1; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:18:47 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CLOIt-0001qo-03; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:59:39 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CLOBK-0008I8-18 for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:51:50 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03390 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:51:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CLOOM-0007Wf-Tr for ietf@ietf.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:05:20 -0400
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (171.71.177.237) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Oct 2004 08:59:36 -0700
Received: from imail.cisco.com (imail.cisco.com [128.107.200.91]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i9NFp2k2029779; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:51:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [212.254.247.3] (sjc-vpn1-969.cisco.com [10.21.99.201]) by imail.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9NFqwd5004098; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:52:59 -0700
Message-ID: <417A7DEC.2070702@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 17:51:08 +0200
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Macintosh/20041017)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: esr@thyrsus.com
References: <4160048B.9050006@cisco.com> <20041005045722.GA30817@thyrsus.com> <9Ia4F1xHw-B@khms.westfalen.de> <9Ia4F1xHw-B@khms.westfalen.de> <20041011153934.GC7804@thyrsus.com> <9JLAMig1w-B@khms.westfalen.de> <20041022202042.GA12470@thyrsus.com>
In-Reply-To: <20041022202042.GA12470@thyrsus.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
IIM-SIG: v:"1"; h:"imail.cisco.com"; d:"cisco.com"; z:"home"; m:"krs"; t:"1098546780.405419"; x:"432200"; a:"rsa-sha1"; b:"nofws:846"; e:"Iw=="; n:"sQYarK2E51MdcTiUqeif3F7cWdxIfoCiXhdfb9vD5ee/j0jXL15gbFxF2pXIw" "eAblu0N6XAgK7k+wrbr7bQDJaCDqOmzqpRUBjIRQAXQ7NzadpmR3pUL6wxaRU" "tW+c43sl9jC50Qg1sXHpPjt8Y+Y16ioyQAQAdSunM4YhevURc="; s:"mEhYKW9pPFWe6aNozk3dzl4bhFhZaysZqstIo5aUeJW4G1CdL1D8+zhZZAixo" "BwD7EZTT16Hi/h4oNurLFlYRVjyKnukT6COYQsXdT6YZoO1M8b6l9bQDn9RUG" "GMtw4SzatzO8T7PM7gLiuOKAg983XUbWDcChunDcY/Q0mX16Q="; c:"Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 17:51:08 +0200"; c:"From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>"; c:"Subject: Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!"
IIM-VERIFY: s:"y"; v:"y"; r:"60"; h:"imail.cisco.com"; c:"message from imail.cisco.com verified; "
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, Kai Henningsen <kaih@khms.westfalen.de>
Subject: Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On my way to the dust bin of history, I happened to notice this posting 
from Eric S. Raymond:

> In what way?  Microsoft now knows that with the mere threat of a patent
> it either can shut down IETF standards work it dislikes or seize control 
> of the results through the patent system.  The IETF has dignaled [sic] that it
> will do nothing to oppose or prevent these outcomes.

If you want an SDO to not allow use of work based on asserted or claimed 
patent rights, then you have to accept that a company such as Microsoft 
will always be able to intervene and shut down a group or attempt to 
force decisions for its strategic benefit.  This is actually a strong 
argument for a compromise position, such as RAND.

In short, we've come full circle.  Can you take this conversation to the 
IPR group?

Thank you,

Eliot

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf