to work this out,
but I will need some clear and direct feedback to get it right.
Best regards,
mark
-Original Message-
From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:23 AM
To: Mark Brown; 'Simon Josefsson'
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
John,
I should have responded in my last email:
I think you are being told --by a number of people and in
different ways-- that there is a perception that having to ask
for a license is seen as appreciably more burdensome and, for
various reasons, risky than if a general license is granted
Hi Simon,
It would be useful if you could explore with your lawyers if it is
actually easy for you to avoid problem (1). I'm wondering what
exactly the requirement for implementers to request this license
from you gives you. Your text suggest that you will never refuse to
grant the rights
. Here's what I was told by IESG:
The IESG has been informed by Mark Brown that he had knowledge of the
September 2005 patent application filed by his employer at the time
he submitted draft-housley-tls-authz-extns. Accordingly, he was
obligated to disclose the existence of this patent
Harald,
I want to apologize again for screwing up the IPR disclosure process.
Normal IPR disclosure process is to alert the IETF community via the IETF
website that a patent has been filed. I mistakenly thought that adding the
boilerplate IPR statement at the top of the ID was sufficient to
Simon,
I filed for patent (Jan and Sep 2005) and later promoted TLS authz (Feb
2006) in good faith. It is possible that the patent claims can be read more
broadly than I expected, but that's a fairly detailed and unresolved legal
question. I am working diligently to -- let me speak carefully --
