Re: [idn] WALID, Inc. IP Statement

[Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>]

At 7:32 AM -0400 4/26/01, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>May 01 WG decision on IDN Protocol

At 12:01 AM -0700 4/28/01, J. Douglas Hawkins wrote:
>  Consequently,
>we
>require some additional time to complete our assessment, sort through
>the
>alternatives and identify an optimum solution.

It is unreasonable for a company like WALID to try to stop the WG 
process because the company says it need months to come to an 
internal decision about how best to use its own IPR.

The WG should decide before Tuesday what it wants to do about the 
protocol given WALID's previous actions, inactions, and this current 
statement.

At 1:43 AM -0700 4/28/01, Dave Crocker wrote:
>3.  The working group, therefore, either simply caves in, if it 
>believes there are no alternatives, or it finds an alternative 
>engineering path around the patent.

There is a third option that many people have discussed in the past 
few months: go with IDNA and assume that the WALID patent will be 
invalidated, at least on the parts that affect IDNA. There are two 
threads here:

a) Some people feel that the WALID patent in fact doesn't actually 
affect IDNA, so if WALID attempts to enforce it, they will be 
rejected by the courts.

b) Some people feel that most or all of the patent itself will be 
overturned because of prior art, some of which is listed in the 
patent itself.

Choosing either side of this third option is a risk whose outcome is 
based on the US legal system, which is notoriously hard to predict 
(even harder to predict than the IETF!). The WG might choose to take 
this risk.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium