> > when i first heard about <http://www.google.com/patents/US8484377> > <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 > > <http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/28/4156614/google-opa-open-source-patent-pledge-wont-sue-unless-attacked>
The difference here is while Google has always maintained a public instance on not weaponising IPRs, every Verisign investor conference for the last few quarters mentioned monetising IPR. At some point either analysts will start calling out on them from not getting IPR-related revenue, or they will start actually doing it. I totally agree that they haven't done it so far, but they are on record as saying they will. Rubens
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
