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

[Dean Anderson <dean at av8.com>]

On Mon, 18 May 2009, Nicolas Williams wrote:

> 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.

Most? I doubt most. I do understand that /some/ are not allowed to do
so.  Of course, if someone can't participate in IETF IPR analysis due to
job restrictions, that doesn't mean that others are unable to
participate, nor does it mean that IPR analysis should not be performed,
nor does it mean that asking for performance is unreasonable.

Indeed, your company probably has a representative who can participate
in the IPR analysis. I think it would be helpful if you would try to
locate that person in your company and prompt their engagement in this
discussion.


> 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.

With the exception of the qualifier "clearly", I agree with your
analysis of the logic of the situation.  But we should investigate the
IPR question before we proceed on this draft.

It occurs to me that if your employment agreement prevents you from
reading patents and assuming you have not violated that agreement, then
you are categorically uninformed about the specifics of these patents
and their IPR disclosure and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

		--Dean


-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000