Re: References to Redphone's "patent"

From: Scott Brim <swb at employees.org>
To: ietf at ietf.org
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:08:53 -0500
In-reply-to: <200902132030.n1DKUfnJ010952 at cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
References: <20090213190630.56CF76BE54F at mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <200902132030.n1DKUfnJ010952 at cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>

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 don't go there.
> 
> 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.

We tried the idea and came to those conclusions.  All the board could
do would be to utter platitudes.

References:
- RE: References to Redphone's "patent"
  - From: Noel Chiappa
- Re: References to Redphone's "patent"
  - From: Thomas Narten

Prev by Date: RE: References to Redphone's "patent"
Next by Date: RE: References to Redphone's "patent"
Previous by thread: Re: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re: References to Redphone's "patent")
Next by thread: RE: References to Redphone's "patent"
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: References to Redphone's "patent"

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.