[Fwd: Re: Please oppose patent-encumbered technologies, including draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]

[Simon Josefsson]

As far as I know, there is only a patent application at this time, but
it is likely to be published as a patent eventually.  The author's
company was founded in 2005.  I'm not sure what "patent enforcement"
means in practice.  In any case, I'm not aware of any lawsuits from
them, but I haven't looked.  They have been trying to get GnuTLS to sign
their patent license though.

/Simon

Ben Finney <ben-TqlCGjI+HWGnbCmf7pGUHw at public.gmane.org> writes:

> Howdy all,
>
> Over on the IETF discussion list, I've been asked to "present 
> evidence" about the patent-encumbered status of the technology in 
> 'draft-housley-tls-authz-extns'.
>
> I don't have that information to hand, and am not sure where to look. 
> Can anyone help?
>
> -- 
>  \      "[...] a Microsoft Certified System Engineer is to information |
>   `\     technology as a McDonalds Certified Food Specialist is to the |
> _o__)                            culinary arts."  -- Michael Bacarella |
> Ben Finney <ben-TqlCGjI+HWGnbCmf7pGUHw at public.gmane.org>
>
> From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf-3s7WtUTddSA at public.gmane.org>
> Subject: Re: Please oppose patent-encumbered technologies,  including draft-housley-tls-authz-extns
> To: Ben Finney <ben-TqlCGjI+HWGnbCmf7pGUHw at public.gmane.org>
> Cc: ietf-EgrivxUAwEY at public.gmane.org
> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:50:38 -0400
>
>>>>>> "Ben" == Ben Finney <ben-TqlCGjI+HWGnbCmf7pGUHw at public.gmane.org> writes:
>
>     Ben> To whom it may concern, I have been made aware that the
>     Ben> technology described in the 'draft-housley-tls-authz-extns'
>     Ben> proposal is encumbered by patents held by entities with a
>     Ben> history of patent enforcement.
>
> I'd appreciate your evidence for both of these claims.  1) That the
> technology is covered by patents.  2) That those claiming these
> patents have a history of enforcing.
>
> I'm aware of evidence that a party has claimed to have patents that
> cover the technology.
> That's significantly weaker than your claim 1.
>
> ----------