> >doesn't follow. it's entirely possible to understand why people bother > >with patents and still believe that IETF shouldn't support their use to > >prevent free implementation of a standard. > > > There's an interesting dilemma here. I know of one case where some > IETFers tried *hard* -- and persuaded their employers -- that an > algorithm they invented should be patent-free. But someone else > asserted that his patent *might* cover their invention -- and, since > their employers wouldn't profit from a patent-free protocol, they > wouldn't stand behind it if it went to court, or even to lawyers at 20 > paces. That is: no patent and no profit => no strong backing.
one of the major problems with the patent system is that it all but forces competition even when it's not desirable. which is why I don't blame companies (or individuals!) for patenting things and licensing them on a "don't sue us, we won't sue you" basis. (which seems to me to be entirely compatible with RF) Keith
