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

[Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com>]

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 02:14:27AM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> Several messages inline:
> 
> On Thu, 14 May 2009, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > 
> > Simon is being unreasonable by acting as though assertions NOT made
> > are nonetheless in force.  We're not mind readers and the law does not
> > and, indeed, _must_ not expect us to so be (no, I am not a lawyer).  
> > We can and should (nay, must) only make decisions based on IPR claims
> > that are asserted, not on claims that are not asserted (again, IANAL,
> > but you knew that).
> 
> Actually, Simon is both right and reasonable. One doesn't need to be a
> mind reader, nor does one need to be a lawyer, to read patents [nor to
> read and obey any law]. The jury won't be made up of lawyers.  It is a
> fallacy that only lawyers need to be concerned with legal matters.  
> Lawyers have the special privilege to represent other people in Court,
> sort of like commercial pilots have the special privilege to fly other
> people for hire.

Most of us are not, in fact, allowed to read patents -- our employers
don't allow it.

Therefore either the IPR claim in question is clearly applicable to the
tls-exporter idea generally, or just in so far as it relates to ECC.  If
the latter then IMO the I-D should progress.  If the former, then we
have a problem.

Nico
--