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
> Generally speaking, standards are useful, because they enable people
to
> converge what they are doing. But that ceases to be true when the use
of
> the standard is patented. It is better to have no standard than have a
> standard that invites people into danger.
I have never argued in favor of open source software.
I am a free software activist.
(See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html.)
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
The operative word here is uncertainty. A patent-holder creates
uncertainty. How should an SDO respond? I'm not sure. I'm only sure
that I don't like getting DoSed, either into dropping a standard or into
not implementing it for fear of infringing.
That's the nature of software
The IPR applies to
Since we're talking about patents, calling them "IPR"
just introduces gratuitous vagueness. Patent law and copyright
law have very little in common, so lumping them together is
basically a mistake. And there are a dozen other areas of laws
which you're generalizing about e
It is best to avoid confusing the issue of patents with other
unrelated laws, so let's avoid the term "intellectual property"
which spreads that confusion.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.
In a first-to-invent regime, the law still favors one with a patent,
since it gives one a cross-licensing opportunity to settle a dispute
with a similar, infringed patent, even if one uses their patent only
protectively.
In a first-to-file regime, protective patents are absolut
