Re: [mmox] Other NVE protocol specification efforts
Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com> Tue, 03 March 2009 18:40 UTC
Return-Path: <tme@multicasttech.com>
X-Original-To: mmox@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmox@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E3DA28C265; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:40:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.56
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.039, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 9ku1D6CwP-Oc; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:40:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from multicasttech.com (lennon.multicasttech.com [63.105.122.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B23F83A68A5; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:40:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [63.105.122.7] (account marshall_eubanks HELO [IPv6:::1]) by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 14845018; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:40:36 -0500
Message-Id: <019C8796-FCC5-4121-8D31-C44049E1015B@multicasttech.com>
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com>
To: Ryan McDougall <sempuki1@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <c7a1b5240903031008i335664dav65edb35f290ffc02@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:41:03 -0500
References: <744D5200-2829-4CF1-B513-2566367CB804@lindenlab.com> <OF3A5799AC.F35A5BAB-ON85257565.007B8230-85257565.007C0F6A@us.ibm.com> <ad15b9430902230015q162ad3eu82f5fc64233ad319@mail.gmail.com> <61dbdd7d0902230016h1a346ecsc5bffd9bb6caf421@mail.gmail.com> <ad15b9430902230052u7129cea5hef3605ee78cc41ce@mail.gmail.com> <a768bcd90902230057o5d3a7b63ob9f6aeba0577ca7e@mail.gmail.com> <c7a1b5240903031008i335664dav65edb35f290ffc02@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
Cc: mmox-bounces@ietf.org, mmox@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mmox] Other NVE protocol specification efforts
X-BeenThere: mmox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Massively Multi-participant Online Games and Applications <mmox.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox>, <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox>
List-Post: <mailto:mmox@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox>, <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:40:38 -0000
On Mar 3, 2009, at 1:08 PM, Ryan McDougall wrote: > Dear god this is why patents discourage innovation. :( > > More productively: has the issue been sufficiently disclosed? Is it on this list ? https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/ If not, then no. Add it here https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/new-specific/ Note that 3rd parties can reveal claims as well. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/new-third-party/ Regards Marshall > > > Please bear with me. Like Tommi, I have not been this process > before... > > Cheers, > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Dan Olivares > <dcolivares@gmail.com> wrote: >> Tommil >> >> As far as I can tell, there isn't anyone slandering your alternative >> approach. It is stated, in the rules of the IETF, that Intellectual >> property rights *MUST* be disclosed using the IPR disclosure tool. >> This has nothing to do with whether or not the license to use the >> patent is granted. The disclosure must still be made. >> >> Best Regards >> >> Dan >> >> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 3:52 AM, Tommi Laukkanen >> <tommi.s.e.laukkanen@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hello >>> >>> We have played this game long enough. Let me speak frankly and >>> bear with me. >>> It would probably serve better to approach these patent issues >>> logically and >>> based on facts instead of vague references to risks. I understand >>> that some >>> parties are not interested in MXP. Trying to slander alternative >>> approaches >>> is still quite unprofessional. >>> >>> I would say that adequate facts has been presented to clear up >>> these IRP >>> concerns for now. If it happens that MXP becomes official >>> candidate for a >>> standard then there is good time for any number of lawyers to go >>> through the >>> public domain patent application. In the mean time anyone still >>> concerned >>> can ask their lawyers for councel. All the material is publicly >>> available >>> for review. >>> >>> best regards, >>> Tommi Laukkanen >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mmox mailing list >>> mmox@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> mmox mailing list >> mmox@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox >> > _______________________________________________ > mmox mailing list > mmox@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
- [mmox] Other NVE protocol specification efforts Tommi Laukkanen
- Re: [mmox] Other NVE protocol specification effor… Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)
- Re: [mmox] Other NVE protocol specification effor… Charles Krinke
- Re: [mmox] Other NVE protocol specification effor… Dan Olivares
- Re: [mmox] Other NVE protocol specification effor… Charles Krinke
- Re: [mmox] Other NVE protocol specification effor… Dan Olivares
- Re: [mmox] Other NVE protocol specification effor… Tommi Laukkanen
- Re: [mmox] Other NVE protocol specification effor… Jon Watte
- Re: [mmox] Other NVE protocol specification effor… Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)
- Re: [mmox] Other NVE protocol specification effor… David W Levine
- [mmox] MMOX: Worth reading... David W Levine
- Re: [mmox] Other NVE protocol specification effor… Gareth Nelson
- Re: [mmox] Other NVE protocol specification effor… Tommi Laukkanen
- Re: [mmox] Other NVE protocol specification effor… Gareth Nelson
- Re: [mmox] Other NVE protocol specification effor… Tommi Laukkanen
- Re: [mmox] Other NVE protocol specification effor… Gareth Nelson
- Re: [mmox] Other NVE protocol specification effor… Dan Olivares
- Re: [mmox] Other NVE protocol specification effor… Ryan McDougall
- Re: [mmox] Other NVE protocol specification effor… Marshall Eubanks