Re: Help with Apple's SSM IPR claim

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <200305201504.h4KF44319876@windsor.research.att.com>, Bill Fenner wr
ites:
>
>>Yes.  One point made explicitly in the IPR working group is that WGs 
>>can decline to adopt encumbered technology
>
>Unfortunately, the IPR seems to cover the basic concept of SSM
>(well, my reading is that it only covers the first four hops, or
>the first two hops if typos can invalidate claims, but that's not
>important since I am not a lawyer or a judge).
>
>The choice in this case is probably to work out the IPR issues or
>disband the working group.
>

That's been the case in the security area, too, on occasion, notably 
when public key technology was still encumbered.  My point is that the 
WG has the discretion to accept Apple's terms or give up and go home if 
they really want royalty-free and Apple won't budge.


		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)