[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IBM patents on key distribution and authentication
Phil Karn says:
> I fully agree with Perry's sentiments about completely avoiding
> patented technology to the greatest possible extent. But when
> incredibly broad (and bogus) patents appear like the recent ones from
> IBM on state machine protocols, assigning temporary IP addresses to
> mobile users and now this one on challenge-authentication, what can we
> do? Give up and go home?
I fully agree that we should not give in to egregiously bad
patents. The X consortium and MIT have refused to give in to AT&T's
claims that it owns a patent on the use of backing store in windowing
systems, and I similarly would suggest that it would be unreasonable
to give in to a claimed patent on challenge-response systems. I was
addressing only the question of whether we should knowingly specify
the use of technology that we know to have a *valid* patent on it, and
whether it is ethical for participants in working groups to knowingly
suggest such technology without mentioning the patents on it -- the
answer I give to both questions is "no".
Perry
Follow-Ups:
References: