Re: patent language for all drafts

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

> There is no necessary connection between pursuing patents and preventing
> others from implementing the ideas contained in them. Personally, I
> see a patent with explicit intentions for open use as the best way to
> protect against other patents that might be restrictive.
> 
> No need to suspect pretended rather than honest good faith.

that's a little bit like targeting ICBMs at cities in another country and
then telling that country you're only doing so to promote mutual security.
it can be true in a sense, but the ICBM is nontheless a threat that has
to be taken seriously by the target.

it's unfortunately does seem to be the case that in the current legal
climate, the most effective way to prevent abuse of patents is to patent
useful technology and then to use those patents to protect yourself from
patent abuse.  most people in this community understand that.  and yet, 
such patents can still be used to do harm, so they're still a threat 
which needs to be taken seriously.  

if you must carry dangerous weapons in public, it's a good idea to not
surprise people or make sudden movements with them.  similarly, if you
find it necessary to have patents that affect our ability to implement
standards, the community will feel somewhat less threatened (and more
amenable to use that technology in its standards) if you disclose them 
as early as possible, and if you publically state that they will be 
licensed to anyone for no charge.

Keith