Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Whether the technology is covered by a patent, I can't say, as I'm > not a judge in a patent-violation suit. > > I claimed that the technology is *encumbered* by a patent, in that > there is a patent claimed on the technology that is at least similar > to the implementation, encumbering the technology and those who > would implement it with the prospect of a very expensive law suit to > determine whether the patent actually covers the technology.
With the corollary that, if *nobody* had to ever go through anything to find out whether the technology is covered by the patent — for example, if the patent holder granted everyone in the world a royalty-free license to implement the described technology for any purpose whatsoever without even knowing the patent existed — then the technology would *not* be encumbered by that patent. So "is covered by patents" is less relevant to my argument than "is encumbered by patents". -- \ "I was arrested today for scalping low numbers at the deli. | `\ Sold a number 3 for 28 bucks." -- Steven Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
