Re: Please oppose patent-encumbered technologies, including draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> writes:

> I'd appreciate your evidence for both of these claims.  1) That the
> technology is covered by patents.

Whether the technology is covered by a patent, I can't say, as I'm not
a judge in a patent-violation suit.

I claimed that the technology is *encumbered* by a patent, in that
there is a patent claimed on the technology that is at least similar
to the implementation, encumbering the technology and those who would
implement it with the prospect of a very expensive law suit to
determine whether the patent actually covers the technology.

My evidence for that begins here
<URL:http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg45874.html>.

> 2) That those claiming these patents have a history of enforcing.

Perhaps "have a history of" was a poor choice of words — I wrote that
message before reading in detail the discussions here. It is
nevertheless evident from the above that the patent-holders in this
case are working to enforce the patent, such that implementors will
need license from them.

That's quite at odds with promoting a technical standard, even though
it may be labelled "experimental", for implementation by parties
interested in interoperability with the technology.

-- 
 \          "If nothing changes, everything will remain the same."  -- |
  `\                                                       Barne's Law |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

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