X-Sympa-To: patents@aful.org
Return-Path: <xdrudis@tinet.cat>
X-Original-To: patents@aful.org
Delivered-To: patents@aful.org
Received: by namur.aful.org (Postfix, from userid 111)
	id B31AC6692D; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 20:58:52 +0100 (CET)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7-deb3 (2006-10-05) on namur.aful.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled 
	version=3.1.7-deb3
X-Greylist: delayed 397 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at dakar; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 20:58:51 CET
Received: from smtp01.tinet.org (smtp01.tinet.org [195.77.216.131])
	by namur.aful.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C50C66927
	for <patents@aful.org>; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 20:58:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: (qmail 25989 invoked by uid 112); 14 Feb 2009 19:52:11 -0000
Received: from 80.224.39.3.static.user.ono.com by smtp01.tinet.org (envelope-from <xdrudis@tinet.cat>, uid 104) with qmail-scanner 
 (clamscan: 0.93/7447.  
 Clear:RC:1(80.224.39.3):. 
 Processed in 0.077484 secs); 14 Feb 2009 19:52:11 -0000
Received: from 80.224.39.3.static.user.ono.com (HELO localhost) (xdrudis@[80.224.39.3])
          (envelope-sender <xdrudis@tinet.cat>)
          by smtp01.tinet.org (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
          for <jonas.maebe@ugent.be>; 14 Feb 2009 19:52:10 -0000
Received: from xdrudis by localhost with local (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <xdrudis@tinet.cat>)
	id 1LYQYJ-0001Ld-PR; Sat, 14 Feb 2009 20:51:51 +0100
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 20:51:51 +0100
To: Jonas Maebe <jonas.maebe@ugent.be>
Cc: Roy Schestowitz <r@schestowitz.com>,
	Enrico Marocco <enrico.marocco@telecomitalia.it>,
	"seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org" <seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>,
	"patents@aful.org" <patents@aful.org>,
	"softwarepatents@ffii.org" <softwarepatents@ffii.org>
Message-ID: <20090214195151.GA4575@localhost>
References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4992C6B3.F0CE122C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4992D35C.3050604@telecomitalia.it> <499363E3.6030108@schestowitz.com> <3B9DBCA7-672D-42DB-A0A2-57EA8A5E51AC@ugent.be>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3B9DBCA7-672D-42DB-A0A2-57EA8A5E51AC@ugent.be>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
From: Xavi Drudis Ferran <xdrudis@tinet.cat>
X-Validation-by: xdrudis@tinet.cat
Subject: Re: [Softwarepatents] [Patents] TODAY/URGENT: Stop IETF Enactment
	of Patented Standard for TLS

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:56:20AM +0100, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> That's not what I see in the message you forwarded. I just see a request 
> from a person who has nothing to do with the entire discussion asking to 
> stop spamming random people (other than that they work on one IETF 
> standard or another -- that does not mean by definition that they define 
> general IETF policy, nor that they have anything to say about the 
> particular IETF standard you are concerned about).
>
> Mail bombing campaigns are seldom a good idea. Especially when they are 
> unleashed indiscriminately on a huge collection of independent technical 
> experts who may or may not actually have anything to do with what you are 
> talking about.
>
>
> Jonas
>

I agree with Jonas. 

Besides, I find a little tiresome the discussion on private patent policy,
let alone a particular compromised specification .
As long as a patent is a state enforced public ban  on some activity, 
all relevant patent discussion is on public policy. The IETF can't have a 
good patent policy simply because software patents don't allow such 
a thing. We're going to spend hours arguing about disclosures and 
royalty free policies while anyone may perfectly compromise any standard
whatever the standard body policies are, by just holding a submarine patent.
There are always more people not invoved in an standard (i.e. not bound 
by whatever patent policy) than people involved, so the best of policies 
does just reduce the potential attackers in a small amount. Of course
there's justification for good non discriminatory RF policies, specially
about trying to avoid periscopes pushing swimmers to their torpedo range,
but pushed or not the submarines and swimmers are still in the same water.

Don't get me wrong. I dislike RAND, prefer RF and don't call a patent
encumbered specification a standard, but do we need to argue one another
on what to do to cope with an untenable situation, or could we perhaps 
try to change the situation?. Of course mail bombing is easier and 
may give some consolation, specialy to those who are already tired 
of more constructive activism. But that does not make it more useful.  
 

-- 
xdrudis@tinet.cat
Signa per fer Collserola parc natural com cal
http://www.collserola.org/salvemelparcnatural/
