Re: [TLS] Proto write-up for TLS exporter

[Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson.org>]

Eric Rescorla <ekr at networkresonance.com> writes:

> While, this is of course true, it's also possible that some other
> entity which doesn't participate in IETF at all has patents that apply
> to extractor. That wouldn't be inconsistent with the information filed
> with the IETF either.

Agreed.

> Either you think that Certicom has a BCP 79 obligation to accurately
> disclose their patents or they don't.

Companies do not have obligations per BCP 79, individuals do.

> If you do, I think it's reasonable to conclude that when they say "our
> patents may cover X" that they don't believe their patents cover
> !X.

I don't believe that is relevant -- in this case, Certicom has filed a
claim that they have patents that covers the tls-extractor document.
Full stop.

The additional information provided with the patent disclosure contains
advertisement and a patent license for use with ECC.  That doesn't imply
anything for non-ECC uses.

> If you don't, then we could equally well conclude that their patents
> may cover drafts they don't even mention.

That does not follow, but there is nothing in BCP 79 to prevent that
situation from happening.

/Simon