IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: References to Redphone's "patent"

Scott Brim <swb@employees.org> Fri, 13 February 2009 21:08 UTC

Return-Path: <swb@employees.org>
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 1F3B33A689D for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:08:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 fHk4F0+jRxNr for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:08:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11B1B3A6805 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:08:47 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,203,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="37039425"
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Feb 2009 21:08:54 +0000
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n1DL8sGE014626 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:08:54 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1DL8svw015762 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 21:08:54 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:08:54 -0500
Received: from cisco.com ([10.86.246.129]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:08:53 -0500
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:08:53 -0500
From: Scott Brim <swb@employees.org>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: References to Redphone's "patent"
Message-ID: <20090213210853.GF9427@cisco.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Scott Brim <swb@employees.org>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <20090213190630.56CF76BE54F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <200902132030.n1DKUfnJ010952@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200902132030.n1DKUfnJ010952@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Feb 2009 21:08:54.0323 (UTC) FILETIME=[47024030:01C98E1F]
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=swb@employees.org; dkim=neutral
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 21:08:49 -0000

Excerpts from Thomas Narten on Fri, Feb 13, 2009 03:30:41PM -0500:
> > I definitely agree that the IETF could use some sort of permanent
> > legal IPR consulting board that WG's could go to and say 'we have
> > this IPR filing, what does it mean, and what is the likely impact on
> > our work'.
> 
> Please don't go there.
> 
> IPR consultation is all about risk analysis. And risk to the IETF
> vs. risk to me personally vs. risk to my employer vs. risk to somebody
> else's employer, etc. All are VERY different things.

We tried the idea and came to those conclusions.  All the board could
do would be to utter platitudes.

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status