Re: patent language for all drafts

[Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>]

> If such intellectual property (IP) is licensed on reasonable terms, does that
> prevent folks from implementing the standards? 

Your idea of reasonable terms may be different than mine.  If the patent is 
licensed freely to anyone for no charge, and the provisions are basically
"you can use our patent, but don't sue us for violating your patents in
implementing the same standard", I would consider that reasonable.  Other
folks consider it reasonable to exact a tribute in exchange for exercise
of that patent.  In the context of implementing a standard developed in the
IETF community, words like "theft" or "extortion" are much closer than 
"reasonable".

> I also take exception with your claim that such participation is not in good
> faith.

If you contribute ideas to a standard in the context of IETF, and you also
try to protect practice those ideas with patents, that is participating in
bad faith.  It is pretending to contribute to something which can be used
by everyone, while at the same time developing a means by which you can 
threaten those who use it with economic harm.  It is like trying to either
tax or steal the labors of others which were given freely for the public 
good.

IMHO, it has no place in IETF.  

We recognize that patents exist and that sometimes it is impossible to write 
a standard that does not use patented technology, and we do the best we can 
given this unfortunate situation.  But that doesn't mean that it's okay for
IETF participants to try to patent ideas that are incorporated in IETF 
standards, or to encourage (however subtly), or even to tacitly watch, IETF
adopt a standard which uses patented technology.  

IETF participants have a responsibility to do what is best in their personal 
opinions for the Internet as a whole, not to try to bolster their employers' 
patent portfolios.

Keith