RE: New patent claim

Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org> Fri, 23 June 2000 20:26 UTC

Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p0432030fb5796ba44ee0@[165.227.249.13]>
In-Reply-To: <2F3EC696EAEED311BB2D009027C3F4F408EB76@vhqpostal.verisign.com>
References: <2F3EC696EAEED311BB2D009027C3F4F408EB76@vhqpostal.verisign.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:35:29 -0700
To: Philip Hallam-Baker <pbaker@verisign.com>, "'MMcClennan@jawstech.com'" <MMcClennan@jawstech.com>
From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>
Subject: RE: New patent claim
Cc: bgreenblatt@directory-applications.com, ietf-smime@imc.org, owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk

At 12:16 PM -0700 6/23/00, Philip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>The working group does not have any budget for any purpose (as far as
>I am aware).

For those of you not familiar with Phill's dry Brit humor (surely he 
writes for NTK?), the IETF does not spend money researching laws. It 
never has. In fact, they did not research whether or not they should 
have posted the IPR statement that started this thread: they just did 
it blindly, as they do with all the rest of them. It is up to you to 
decide whether or not the patent is valid, applies to anything you 
are doing, and so on.

(And, before someone posts a "why not" type response, might I remind 
you that you all paid no money to be members of the IETF? That might 
give you a clue....)

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

New patent claim Paul Hoffman / IMC
Re: New patent claim Dennis Glatting
Re: New patent claim Bruce Greenblatt
RE: New patent claim Philip Hallam-Baker
RE: New patent claim MMcClennan
RE: New patent claim Philip Hallam-Baker
RE: New patent claim Paul Hoffman / IMC