Re: IPR Re: IETF 54 calendar (fwd)

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb at research.att.com>]

In message <200205292104.g4TL4WM03346 at astro.cs.utk.edu>, Keith Moore writes:
>> If what you are asking for is that for every proposal / i-d that shows
>> up in the IETF, the IPR holder is automatically required to provide an
>> RF license, you really don't understand the reason people bother with
>> patents to begin with.
>
>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.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com ("Firewalls" book)