[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IPv6 Security Last Call Initial Questions
> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 95 17:26:28 -0500
> From: bound@zk3.dec.com
>
> I can't speak for my folks but I need to ask first. If I have a patent
> for security other than cryptography would we have to let IBM use that?
> Or does this only apply to patents we may have for the specific
> function for ESP?
>If "my folks" and "we" is DEC, that still begs the meta-issue.
Not sure my representation of 'folks' required the above response but
OK. I also say words like 'ya all' or 'yo dude' or 'mey boyz'. Many
studies in the U.S. have taught us to reach true freedom we must all
learn to value each others differences. This includes the dialect of
others who may not be known to us. Besides that where I am from that
could "really piss someone off" (to use a dialect in one area of the
U.S. I have lived anyway, not mine of course!!). The point is to keep
this mail civil we have to be careful how we respond. It doesn't really
matter what "folks" defined at all and was my way of talking off the top
of my head in a response.
>While neither are technical issues, patents seem to be a greater
Whats the point of your "While..." clause in the sentence above I ask
before I interpret it to be courteous to you? If its that engineers
only concern themselves with 'technical' issues then I disagree
completely? Or if the IETF discussions should only consist of bits and
bytes discussions I again disagree? But I assume you mean't something
else? Many products have been built that were great engineering pieces
of work, but nobody bought them on the market. This I think is OK for
artists or even philosophers, but if one would do this as an engineer,
if I ran a business, and it happened more than once (you can screw up once)
I would fire the engineer for being incompetent, or move them to research
if they were really good with ideas and generating prototypes to look at for
the market.
>huldle to adoption than exportability. If I (in the generic sense)
>can't export it, I can still tell you about someplace where you can
>import it and we're interoperating. Patents often involves paying
>some money to someone. Regardless of how nominal that fee is, it
>still acts as a barrier to someone implementing off open standards.
But the nominal fee may be cheaper than the cost in "time" to deal with
getting another export license, so it could be cheaper. These kinds of
decisions are now in engineering made all the time in our industry its
the decision to buy vs build. Plus CDMF costs nothing unless you have a
patent, so your input "may" apply in the abstract case, but not in this
case. CDMP sounds like virtual GNU freeware.
/jim
Follow-Ups: