Re: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?

good evening , there was an intersting statement a while ago in the apple streaming list that i like to share: <---> > If you use a technique covered by a patent for your own, private > use, you are not obliged to pay royalty fees. > --> if you compile sources and build an executable you can t

Re: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?

On 2007-09-27 03:35, Paul Hoffman wrote: ... At 10:02 AM +0200 9/26/07, Simon Josefsson wrote: Hear, hear. I believe a significant part of the IETF community would agree with Paul Vixie that something similar to what the IEEE have would be very useful for the IETF community as well. When I rea

Re: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?

On 26 Sep 2007 at 14:06 +0200, Harald Alvestrand allegedly wrote: > Note that if: > > - Company A has a patent on nanosecond gate opening > - Company A has issued the claim above, in conjunction with an IETF > standard > - Company B has a patent on the application of slow-drying oil paint >

RE: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?

At 11:32 PM -0700 9/25/07, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Let's first charter the IPR-WG to completely reconsider the IETF patent policy in light of new software industry expectations, and so that we get rid of the inadequate RAND (and even non-RAND) IETF IPR policies that currently exist. If you want t

Re: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:32:21 -0700 "Lawrence Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I respectfully disagree with Steven Bellovin and Scott Brim, and ask > that we NOT turn this issue back to the IPR-WG unless and until its > charter is revised to allow it to *completely revise* IETF's IPR > polici

Re: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?

Chris Elliott wrote: You mean like: Cisco is the owner of US published patent applications 20050154872 and 20050154873 and one or more pending unpublished patent applications relating to the subject matter of "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Session Resumption without Server Side State" .

Re: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?

"Lawrence Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Scott Brim responded: >> I'm with Ted ... let's take this over to ipr-wg. > > I respectfully disagree with Steven Bellovin and Scott Brim, and ask that we > NOT turn this issue back to the IPR-WG unless and until its charter is > revised to allow it t

RE: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?

> -Original Message- > From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 12:20 PM > To: Paul Vixie > Cc: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point? > > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:47:46 + > Pau

Re: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?

* Paul Vixie: > very clear, very well done, but if anything it adds to my list of questions > rather than subtracting from that, since it begs the question, what is the > objective definition of "reasonable and nondiscriminatory"? Any terms that prevent courts from granting compulsory patent lice

Re: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?

On 25 Sep 2007 at 18:40 +, Paul Vixie allegedly wrote: > very clear, very well done, but if anything it adds to my list of > questions rather than subtracting from that, since it begs the > question, what is the objective definition of "reasonable and > nondiscriminatory"? The more a disclosur

Re: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:47:46 + Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > in , > we see: > > Letters of Assurance are requested from all parties > holding patents which may be applicable to any IEEE >

Re: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?

On Sep 25, 2007, at 11:21 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: [...] I don't think it's fundamentally different from the IETF policy (that is, RAND is acceptable). Actually, per RFC 3978 and friends, the IETF does not even require a RAND commitment. There have recently been cases where RFCs have bee

Re: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?

> > no, i was thinking of the promise not to sue, rather than the promise to > > disclose the possibility of suing. > > You mean like: > > ... > If technology in this document is included in a standard adopted by IETF > and any claims of any Cisco patents are necessary for practicing the > standa

Re: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Paul Vixie wrote: You mean like: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/about/ no, i was thinking of the promise not to sue, rather than the promise to disclose the possibility of suing. You mean like: Cisco is the owner of US published patent applications 20050154872 and

Re: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?

* Paul Vixie: > in , we see: > > Letters of Assurance are requested from all parties > holding patents which may be applicable to any IEEE > standard. Basically they state that the patent owne

Re: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?

> You mean like: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/about/ no, i was thinking of the promise not to sue, rather than the promise to disclose the possibility of suing. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?

http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/faq.pdf. Donald -Original Message- From: Paul Vixie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 1:48 PM To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point? in <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/21/802_11n_patent_thr

Re: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?

Were it that easy. An IEEE LoA can be RAND, can be RANDZ, or can state that the company won't RAND nor RANDZ. On 9/25/07, Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > in , we see: > > Letters of Assurance are requested fro

Re: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?

At 5:47 PM + 9/25/07, Paul Vixie wrote: >in , we see: > > Letters of Assurance are requested from all parties > holding patents which may be applicable to any IEEE > standard. Basically the

Re: why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?

You mean like: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/about/ ? Chris. On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Paul Vixie wrote: in , we see: Letters of Assurance are requested from all parties holding patents which may

why can't IETF emulate IEEE on this point?

in , we see: Letters of Assurance are requested from all parties holding patents which may be applicable to any IEEE standard. Basically they state that the patent owner