On 11/11/16 15:43, Nick Lamb wrote: > My review (based on what I saw posted to CA/B mailing lists) > suggested > that there isn't active patent uncertainty at all for some Ballot 169 > methods. I would welcome more information if you have some.
Well, if previous IPR disclosures are, in fact, invalid, then we cannot assume that they are complete. > I saw documents citing patents which might be infringed by implementing > methods > 3.2.2.4.1 through 4, plus numbers 7 and 8. This leaves, seemingly unpatented > > 3.2.2.4.5 Domain Authorization Document > 3.2.2.4.6 Agreed-Upon Change to Website > 3.2.2.4.9 Test Certificate > 3.2.2.4.10. TLS Using a Random Number But even if they are complete, I believe this is incorrect - one CA asked for method 9 to be moved from ballot 181 to ballot 182, implying that they might perhaps have a patent that covered it. Gerv _______________________________________________ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
