Re: Putting IPR on the IETF consensus proccess (was: beware of fake pills)

[Bernard Aboba <aboba at internaut.com>]

With all due respect,  broad defensive non-assert clauses are quite 
different from RF licenses.  For an analysis of the differences, see the 
article below: 

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/lichtman/def-susp.pdf

Brian Carpenter said:

It's a defensive non-assert disclosure, which IMHO is equivalent to RF
for anyone who plays nicely. Actually a defensive non-assert may
indirectly *protect* a normal implementor, when you think about its
impact on a third party implementor who does try to assert a patent.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf