[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Patented RFC Code

To: ipr-wg at ietf.org
Subject: Re: Patented RFC Code
From: Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 04:59:58 +0100
List-help: <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-id: IPR-WG <ipr-wg.ietf.org>
List-post: <mailto:ipr-wg@ietf.org>
List-subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy>
References: <20070117083841.GA18621@nic.fr> <50E312B117033946BA23AA102C8134C67FFEA3@SDCPEXCCL2MX.wilmerhale.com> <45B03AE5.4E62@xyzzy.claranet.de> <20070119033859.D4271765FE5@berkshire.machshav.com>

Steven M. Bellovin wrote:

> The problem with that is 3rd-party patents may be discovered later.

Yes, the case I've in mind was a "first party" claim, and about the
readers of the RFCs without direct pointer from or to the IPR pages,
unless they happen to know the former name of the renamed draft.

> there's no way to retroactively change the RFC

Sure, I was talking about known IPR, not something discovered later.

Frank

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

References:
- Re: IETF Trust FAQ
  - From: Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Patented RFC Code
  - From: Contreras, Jorge
- Re: Patented RFC Code
  - From: Frank Ellermann
- Re: Patented RFC Code
  - From: Steven M. Bellovin

Prev by Date: Re: Patented RFC Code
Next by Date: FYI: 3979 update (was: I-D ACTION:draft-lynch-execd-tasks-00.txt)
Previous by thread: Re: Patented RFC Code
Next by thread: Re: Patented RFC Code
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread