On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 02:11:26PM -0800, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
But are the 1,000 or so emails in recent days from the FSF campaign not a
loud enough hum to recognize that our IPR policy is out of tune? This is not
the first such open source campaign either. IETF needs a more sturdy process
to
PHB == Hallam-Baker, Phillip pba...@verisign.com writes:
PHB The proposal that I made then was that when a working group is
PHB started, it specify the IPR criteria under which it is
PHB chartered. In some cases it makes perfect sense to charter a
PHB group that will be using
John Levine wrote:
But are the 1,000 or so emails in recent days from the FSF campaign
not a loud enough hum to recognize that our IPR policy is out of
tune?
Are you really saying that all it takes is a mob motivated by an
misleading screed to make the IETF change direction?
Yes -
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Chuck Powers wrote:
+1
That is a legal quagmire that the IETF (like all good standards
development groups) must avoid.
Chuck is not alone in saying that, as you have just seen.
These are the very people who refused to add patent policy to the charter
of the
-Original Message-
From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:har...@alvestrand.no]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 5:10 AM
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re: References
to Redphone's patent)
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Chuck Powers
But are the 1,000 or so emails in recent days from the FSF campaign
not a loud enough hum to recognize that our IPR policy is out of
tune?
Are you really saying that all it takes is a mob motivated by an
misleading screed to make the IETF change direction?
From the sample of the FSF letters I
At 2:11 PM -0800 2/16/09, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Let's forget the past; I acknowledge we lost that argument then among those
few who bothered to hum.
Many of us have heard this in various technical working groups when people who
didn't get their way come back later. Such reconsiderations,
But are the 1,000 or so emails in recent days from the FSF campaign
not a loud enough hum to recognize that our IPR policy is out of
tune?
Are you really saying that all it takes is a mob motivated by an
misleading screed to make the IETF change direction?
I certainly hope not because, as
Lots of the recent emails on this list refer to Redphone's patent but
there is no such thing.
As anyone who has ever worked with real patents knows, there is a great
difference between a patent application and a patent. Whatever claims are
written in patent applications are merely wishes and
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Lots of the recent emails on this list refer to Redphone's patent but
there is no such thing.
In my emails, I used the reference to US patent application 11/234,404
as amended on 2008/01/25.
As anyone who has ever worked with real patents knows, there is a great
...@rosenlaw.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: References to Redphone's patent
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Lots of the recent emails on this list refer to Redphone's patent but
there is no such thing.
In my emails, I used the reference to US patent application 11/234,404
as amended
At 10:48 AM -0800 2/13/09, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
That's why I'm so irritated that the previous IPR WG, since disbanded
(fortunately), refused even to discuss a patent policy for IETF.
Armed with my calming cup of white tea, I point out that this is not
true. The group considered the question of
Lawrence:
I think we are close to intellectual agreement([0]), but see below.
(Nothing to do about my personal position as an [---] advice provider.)
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Thierry Moreau wrote:
Check by yourself, I do not provide
professional advice in here.
And that's why I made my
j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) writes:
From: Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com
the previous IPR WG .. refused even to discuss a patent policy for IETF.
I thought the IETF sort of had one, though (see RFC mumble)?
I definitely agree that the IETF could use some sort of
] On
Behalf Of Thomas Narten
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 2:31 PM
To: Noel Chiappa
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: References to Redphone's patent
j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) writes:
From: Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com
the previous IPR WG .. refused even
Excerpts from Thomas Narten on Fri, Feb 13, 2009 03:30:41PM -0500:
I definitely agree that the IETF could use some sort of permanent
legal IPR consulting board that WG's could go to and say 'we have
this IPR filing, what does it mean, and what is the likely impact on
our work'.
Please
-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Powers Chuck-RXCP20
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 12:36 PM
To: Thomas Narten; Noel Chiappa
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: References to Redphone's patent
+1
That is a legal quagmire that the IETF (like all good standards
Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of Lawrence Rosen
Sent: Fri 2/13/2009 11:18 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: References to Redphone's patent
Lots of the recent emails on this list refer to Redphone's patent but
there is no such thing.
As anyone who has ever worked with real
...@ietf.org on behalf of Thomas Narten
Sent: Fri 2/13/2009 3:30 PM
To: Noel Chiappa
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: References to Redphone's patent
j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) writes:
From: Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com
the previous IPR WG .. refused even to discuss a patent
From: Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com
IPR consultation is all about risk analysis. And risk to the IETF vs.
risk to me personally vs. risk to my employer vs. risk to somebody
else's employer, etc. All are VERY different things.
... It will still come down to someone else
Phill,
On 2009-02-14 10:41, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
...
The proposal that I made then was that when a working group is started, it
specify the IPR criteria under which it is chartered. In some cases it makes
perfect sense to charter a group that will be using encumbered technology. In
. Moreover nobody can implement until the IPR issues
are fully understood.
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]
Sent: Fri 2/13/2009 6:40 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: How we got here, RE: References to Redphone's patent
I'll also add that we have now many working groups closing in on their
ten-year anniversary, with a dozen RFCs to their credit. (DHC and AVT
are probably among the oldest, but there are many others not far
behind. AVT has about 90 RFCs listed.) I don't see how one can create
a model that
Shall we ask the FSF members of IETF also to comment on the
need for IETF to
develop a comprehensive policy toward patents so that encumbrances to
Internet standards can be understood and avoided in the future?
/Larry
IETF does have a patent policy. It is at RFC 3979. It may not be
24 matches
Mail list logo
