> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Schnizlein [mailto:jschnizl@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 2:16 PM
> To: Keith Moore; cdn
> Subject: Re: patent language for all drafts
>
>
> Keith,
>
> 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.
>
> John
In theory this is valid. The key point here is a patent with explicit intentions
for open use. Here, I am not suggesting in any way that the good intentions may not be there.
The point that I would like to drive home is that we need to know in advance the extent
of IP or patents on the standardization process. For example, in the DNS based redirection
if the use of CNAME is covered by a patent, we may us NS in the standard and make the use of CNAME optional. In this way we try to avoid any possible complications in advance.
I honestly do not want to see a standard that is proposed that requires 10 lawyers to
obtain royalty free applications from ten companies before the standard could be
implemented.
abbie