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