Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jun 6, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Thierry Moreau wrote:
Blindly following the above ideology will result in less and less RFCs,
hence less network standardization and/or standardization made by
entities other than the IETF.
Actually, what would result in fewer and fewer RFCs would be people
patenting the technology and asking for royalties on what they have
patented. It's true that there would be fewer and fewer RFCs if more
and more people did this, but that would be an economic result of the
activity of those people. Calling the functioning of an ecosystem
"ideology" is just a way of pretending that something you are doing to
destroy and replace that ecosystem is "fair."
It's possible that if you succeed in getting enough patents, some other
gruesome ecosystem will arise to replace the ecosystem that has grown
around the IETF. You could say that someone who would prefer not to
have to attempt to survive in such a polluted ecosystem is an
ideologue, but in so saying you are making yourself into an ideologue
as well. And then the question becomes, which ideology do we
prefer?
Like it or not, the current patent regime is somehow rooted in the US
constitution, well-entrenched national laws, and treaties both for the
fundamental patent system characteristics (e.g. WTO), and for the
facilitation and harmonization of patent applications in multiple
countries (e.g. PCT).
Indeed, there is an ideology behind the current patent regime. You may
feel it's "gruesome". See the conclusion of a committee chaired by late
Georges Washington at
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html#1.8.8
Unfortunetely for the opposing view, the comment period for this
committee is closed.
So, it's neither a matter with me, nor with a new definition of "fair"
that would apply to a specification merely because it is published as an
IETF RFC. These conflicting views has been discussed at length in many
fields of human activites. Yet the patent regime is still up and running.
So using the term "ideology" to describe a person's position
that disagrees with yours, while perhaps true, adds nothing to the
conversation.
It is in its fight against the well rooted foundations of the patent
system that the IPR unemcumbrance ideology is counter-productive in the
present instance.
By the way, does IETF dnsop need to discuss a consensus-based DNSSEC
root priming specification? I whish an open discussion is possible.
Regards,
--
- Thierry Moreau
CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc.
9130 Place de Montgolfier
Montreal, Qc
Canada H2M 2A1
Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax: (514)385-5900
web site: http://www.connotech.com
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
