> Paul Wouters <mailto:p...@nohats.ca> > Saturday, February 28, 2015 10:39 AM > > The same has happened with the IPSec patent from versign. Obvious > prior art and the same unclear license policy. I got scolded at by > versign representatives at one of the last ietfs for pointing this > out. I wonder how we as a community need to act on this continued > counter-productive behaviour.
nothing. the people at verisign are smart, constructive, and have their shoulders to the same wheels as the rest of us. while i would like to see the POISED WG reconvene to take a stronger stand about IPR, and in particular, to require an unambiguous statement as to an IPR holder's belief in the similarities between a WG draft and some patent -- rather than "it might be a problem, we don't know yet, we're just warning you", the fact is that many of our colleagues inside tech companies have their incentive compensation linked to the number of patent filings an employee is responsible for. when i first heard about <http://www.google.com/patents/US8484377> i went to people i know inside google and asked that this be moved into their "royalty-free" category. in general they (and i suspect verisign also) don't want to constrain public benefit innovation so much as to create trade bait against other IPR holders, and once they know for sure that one of their patents is capable of constraining public benefit innovation and thus making the whole internet less safe (because most IETF WG's will refuse to standardize something where royalties must be paid), they'll do the right thing. please, everybody, don't point fingers and shout "rent seeking behaviour!" when the actual facts are more nuanced and the track record of these companies is good. see here, for example: http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/28/4156614/google-opa-open-source-patent-pledge-wont-sue-unless-attacked -- Paul Vixie
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
