IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: References to Redphone's "patent"

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Fri, 13 February 2009 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
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 0960F3A6B7E for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:06:27 -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 FVVCkbdiM3SB for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:06:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AF7E3A6B42 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:06:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 56CF76BE54F; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:06:30 -0500 (EST)
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: References to Redphone's "patent"
Message-Id: <20090213190630.56CF76BE54F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:06:30 -0500
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
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 19:06:27 -0000

    > From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>

    > the previous IPR WG .. refused even to discuss a patent policy for IETF.

I thought the IETF sort of had one, though (see RFC mumble)?

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'. And of course that
board would have to have people with professional expertise in IPR on it (i.e.
patent attorneys) - although IMO I think it would be more effective if it were
not _just_ attorneys, but also included some engineers with experience with
the IPR world (e.g. as expert witnesses), to help interface between the two
cultures! :-)

Just briefly, what are the problems you see with the existing IETF patent
policy (other than not having such an consulting board)?

	Noel

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