CALSCH example (fwd)

[Alexandre Dulaunoy <alexandre.dulaunoy@ael.be>]

FYI 

-- 
--                   Alexandre Dulaunoy (adulau) -- http://www.foo.be/
--          http://pgp.ael.be:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x44E6CBC
--         "Knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance
--                                that we can solve them" Isaac Asimov

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 08:10:36 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
To: ipr-wg@ietf.org
Subject: CALSCH example



--On fredag, mars 28, 2003 09:07:53 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand 
<harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:

>
>
> --On torsdag, mars 27, 2003 10:18:08 -0500 Russell Nelson
> <nelson@crynwr.com> wrote:
>
>>  >     and it has not been shown to be broken.
>>
>> Not been shown to be broken??  Here's the algorithm to show you that
>> it's broken:
>>
>> 1) Go to http://www.ietf.org/ipr/
>> 2) Choose a disclosure.
>> 3) See if it offers RF terms.  If so, pick another.
>> 4) Find an open source implementation of the standard (if there is
>> one).
>> 5) Go to the maintainer of the software and say "Do you realize that
>> Well-Funded IPR-holder claims that your software infringes their patent?"
>>
>> I could implement this algorithm, but I think it will be much more
>> instructive if you implement it yourself.
>
> I thought I saw Scott Bradner asking for almost exactly the same
> verification - in his case, he seemed to think that you would have a hard
> time finding an example; in your case, you seem to think that it is
> trivial to find an example.
>
> One example, which I know enough about to recognize when I see it: CALSCH
>
> Disclosures:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR//IBM-CALSCH ;(RAND)
> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR//ACTIONTECH-CALSCH ;(RAND)
> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR//SUN-CALSCH ;(RAND)
>
> Implementations:
>
> http://softwarestudio.org/libical/
> Licensing terms: NPL and LGPL
> http://www.softwarestudio.org/libical/UsingLibical/node4.html
>
> The project pages seem to show a low activity level, with last postings
> in December of last year.
>

After sending this, I did contact the chief developer, Eric Busboom (yes, 
he did give me permission to use his name), and he said:


>> - Are/were you aware of those patent claims when developing libical?
>
> I was vaguely aware of them, and had read at least one of the notices.
>
>> - If yes: Did those claims cause any problem for you?
>
> No. I completely ignored them. I am certain that there are dozens to
> hundreds of patents that apply to nearly anything that I create in
> software, so I just try not to worry about it. I can't afford to do a
> patent search before I  begin work on a project, and any search I did do
> would likely miss or misinterpret applicable patents, so I just ignore
> the whole thing.
>
> And, I figure the real patent threat to libical is not from the companies
> that filed claim notices, but from those that did not.

from our next exchange:

>>
>> Not the safest course, I think, but likely the one that's possible.
>
> True, but the only real alternative would have been not to write the
> library, and that would have been a bigger loss. If we let the patent
> attourneys keep us from writting software, the patent attournies will
> have won! Wait... are we talking about patent lawyers or terrorists? :-)

His words speak for themselves.

                          Harald

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg