Re: [TLS] Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-extractor (Keying MaterialExporters for Transport Layer Security (TLS)) to Proposed Standard

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> Tue, 28 July 2009 04:36 UTC

Return-Path: <rms@gnu.org>
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F2483A6C53; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.742
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.742 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.857, 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 EL4twPLTaKvp; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [140.186.70.10]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADAE23A6BD2; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <rms@gnu.org>) id 1MVeQe-0004tw-3u; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 00:36:44 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <wbeebee@cisco.com>
In-reply-to: <BB56240F3A190F469C52A57138047A0302C80D14@xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com> (wbeebee@cisco.com)
References: <026364d64021d6cef8b930cf16df1221.squirrel@www.trepanning.net><Pine.LNX.4.44.0907201645020.16218-100000@citation2.av8.net><20090721195028.GQ1020@Sun.COM><E1MTkBi-0007Gi-5e@fencepost.gnu.org><20090722223622.GP1020@Sun.COM> <E1MU9jO-0007UF-Sl@fencepost.gnu.org> <BB56240F3A190F469C52A57138047A0302C80D14@xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com>
Message-Id: <E1MVeQe-0004tw-3u@fencepost.gnu.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 00:36:44 -0400
Cc: ietf-honest@lists.iadl.org, tls@ietf.org, Nicolas.Williams@sun.com, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-extractor (Keying MaterialExporters for Transport Layer Security (TLS)) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 04:36:44 -0000

    Many patents are filed for defensive reasons.  Ie. If I don't patent it,
    then someone else will, and then I won't be able to use the idea I came
    up with.  The other defensive reason is so that if company A tries to
    sue company B for infringing patents, then company B can threaten to sue
    company A back - and the end result of the mutual assured destruction is
    that no one ends up suing anyone else.  In other words, patents can
    actually reduce the number of law suits out there.

If you are claiming that one additional software patent can result in
fewer software patent infringement lawsuits, indeed that can sometimes
be true.  But lawsuits are just the tip of the iceberg of the danger
of patents.

When people decide not to distribute a program, or not to implement a
feature, because they fear they would be sued, no lawsuit occurs, but
the patent has done harm.

      In many cases,
    patents are filed long before the technology is standardized - and, if
    disclosed properly through the IETF process, can be weighed when
    determining whether to adopt a standard.

IETF should use this leverage to refuse to issue a standard unless the
companies in question allow it to be freely implemented and used.

      In some cases, the IETF may
    choose to adopt a patent-encumbered standard simply because it's
    technically superior to other options

That is an example of what not to do.