IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: RIM patents using a mime body in a message (and ignores IETF IPRrules)

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Thu, 19 November 2009 19:32 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.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 425573A6849 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:32:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.422
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.422 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.177, 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 qPlnaYMw+bnY for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:32:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9606D3A6836 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:32:18 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApsEAHYsBUurRN+K/2dsb2JhbACKMrQAl3SEOwQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,772,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="51720813"
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.223.138]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Nov 2009 19:32:16 +0000
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.194]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nAJJWFaL013056; Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:32:15 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Stephan Wenger' <stewe@stewe.org>, 'Scott Lawrence' <scott.lawrence@nortel.com>, 'IETF-Discussion list' <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <1258630815.6382.186.camel@scott> <C72AD3A4.1DD6C%stewe@stewe.org>
Subject: RE: RIM patents using a mime body in a message (and ignores IETF IPRrules)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:32:15 -0800
Message-ID: <0e2a01ca694f$001db440$c2f0200a@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <C72AD3A4.1DD6C%stewe@stewe.org>
Thread-Index: AcppSUXq2AnRhNw3xkSES6SzVfI2VgABNF3Q
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
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 19:32:19 -0000

> Rescinding RFCs-to-be only based on late disclosures may set 
> a precedence for the future we may not like.

Doing so would provide an incentive for the patent holder to delay disclosure
until after the RFC is issued.

IETF lacks a censure policy for such violations.  Maybe we need one.

-d

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email