nanog mailing list archives
Re: Patents, IETF and Network Operators
From: Jorge Amodio <jmamodio () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:41:37 -0600
As an starting point you should read "The Tao of the IETF" RFC4677 (currently, update draft in progress). About your particular question read section 8.4.5. Regards Jorge On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Abhishek Verma <abhishekv.verma () gmail com> wrote:
Hi, Network Ops folks use the IETF standards for their operations. I see lot of nifty things coming out from the IETF stable and i was wondering why those dont get patented? Why bother releasing some really good idea to IETF (i.e. open standards bodies) when the vendor could have patented it. The network operators can still use it as long as they are using that vendor's equipment. I understand that interop can be an issue, since it will be a patented technology, but it will always work between the boxes from the same vendor. If so, then whats the issue? Is interop the only issue because of which most ideas get released into IETF? I guess interop is *an* issue since nobody wants a single vendor network. Thanks, Abhishek
Current thread:
- Patents, IETF and Network Operators Abhishek Verma (Jan 21)
- Re: Patents, IETF and Network Operators Christopher Morrow (Jan 21)
- Re: Patents, IETF and Network Operators Jorge Amodio (Jan 21)
- Re: Patents, IETF and Network Operators Scott Brim (Jan 21)
- Re: Patents, IETF and Network Operators Jorge Amodio (Jan 21)
- Re: Patents, IETF and Network Operators Scott Brim (Jan 21)
- Re: Patents, IETF and Network Operators Shane Ronan (Jan 21)
- Re: Patents, IETF and Network Operators Jorge Amodio (Jan 21)
- RE: Patents, IETF and Network Operators George Bonser (Jan 21)
- Re: Patents, IETF and Network Operators Jorge Amodio (Jan 21)
- Re: Patents, IETF and Network Operators Steven Bellovin (Jan 21)
- Re: Patents, IETF and Network Operators Randy Bush (Jan 21)