Re: [smartpower-interest] New SMART-Power Purchasing Control Model

Hi Todd,

For the benefit of novice members who might take IETF boilerplate
without vices, could you please
elucidate on the statement "for refusing to put in place a model for
IETF IP which will meet those requirements of their sponsor's IP
acquisition policies already in use today" , perhaps with examples.

Thanks,
-Sujay

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 7:12 PM, todd glassey <tglassey@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I should mention that  we have a new "Protocol for the  Announcement of
> Energy Availability , Negotiation for and then Purchase of Energy" as an
> algorithmic trading system type operation. It was patent-applied-for prior
> to its public announcement. As such NO right to use it is conveyed in this
> announcement (this last comment is to address NoteWell).
>
> It's a variant of a system used by Securities Traders today which is fully
> FINRA and SEC Approved, and why that is important is that the instant a
> meter can shop and buy power from other provides it will become federally
> regulated by FINRA, and there is no way around that for anyone.
>
> So... the patent for this was filed in March of 2010 and is already
> registered. The IP is intended to be licensable and there will be an open
> source version which will implement the basic messaging
> and control service application protocol over the IP-over-Grid messaging
> already in place for DASH7 and other appliance type device systems. If you
> are interested please contact me off list.
>
>
> It is NOT my intent at this time to turn this IP over to the IETF because of
> what I cite as "gross incompetence in the IETF's legal team and IPR working
> group" for refusing to put in place a model for IETF IP which will meet
> those requirements of their sponsor's IP acquisition policies already in use
> today ... a situation which I assert is well known and which makes control
> and ownership of any IETF protocol impossible even for the IETF itself, but
> the people inside seem to intend this to be the case and so turning IP over
> to the IETF is neither smart or meets the terms and conditions for any of
> the commercial players here IMHO.
>
> This is what happens when you put people in charge of the IETF who's
> professional salaries are paid to allow them to continue dominating and
> preventing others from working with and in advancing efforts inside the IETF
> itself.
>
>
> Todd Glassey
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> smartpower-interest mailing list
> smartpower-interest@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartpower-interest
>
>