Re: RIM patents using a mime body in a message (and ignores IETF IPR rules)

ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com Thu, 19 November 2009 18:42 UTC

Return-Path: <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.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 CF64B3A6849 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:42:41 -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=[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 7UpL+hQMU-2L for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:42:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F14DB3A698D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:42:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01NG9VCGFVJ4004QIQ@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:42:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01NG8W7A4DR40002QL@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:42:28 -0800 (PST)
From: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Message-id: <01NG9VCEWETC0002QL@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:40:25 -0800
Subject: Re: RIM patents using a mime body in a message (and ignores IETF IPR rules)
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:19:41 -0500" <5F5E5CDB0670267DF04D9561@PST.JCK.COM>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
References: <487AB12E-FD4A-4AD5-8641-17B4B64C6F8F@cisco.com> <4B04A9C5.6060904@gmail.com> <5F5E5CDB0670267DF04D9561@PST.JCK.COM>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1258656022; i=@mrochek.com; bh=fpdFuxhZYO8crBRSn1ClSQYG6O3qU3X1jFd+uRviFbo=; h=From:Cc:Message-id:Date:Subject:In-reply-to:MIME-version: Content-type:References:To; b=jtcJ98tAnZYrOTWgAaXS3WBDo/YcXAqLhpFmcFhyKr9A4HDQV/ToVdpaf6dGjU7wK XHFHvGtBbrkbyAWaWc4U9434JRpXdLufhEWUPduwHbXKtkIwu3JWZoN4YMlm5ZMtwJ 4JXgUnlGDJjTk5OV/yuXvZQWkDy7pdONgfUEb/PQ=
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, IETF-Discussion list <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: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:42:41 -0000

> FWIW, I agree with Brian.  Pulling this (waiting until the IESG
> approves and only then filing the disclosure) on a media type
> registration seems particularly egregious but is, in any event,
> exactly the type of situation the IPR rules are intended to
> prevent.  Like him, I believe that the IESG can recind its
> action on this basis without having to go through the procedural
> clutter of an appeal.  In addition, if an appeal were really
> necessary, nothing prevents one or more of the IESG members who
> believe that they would have acted differently had the
> disclosure occurred on a timely basis from filing it.

+1

I'll also note that nothing prevents then from registrering this in the media
type vnd. tree.

				Ned