In message <200405260709.DAA13566@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>, der Mouse wr
ites:
>> For open-source entities, it's problematic, because we now have to
>> choose to EITHER, NOT apply an IETF recommended change, OR encumber
>> our sources.
>
>Only for NetBSD - and other USA entity - values of "we".  (Which
>admittedly is not inappropriate to assume on this list, but David did
>say "open-source entities".)  Certainly not for all open-source work.
>
>Unless Cisco went to the trouble to file for patents elsewhere, which I
>rather doubt they did (and in most jurisdictions, can't do now; the USA
>is unique, or nearly so, in having that one-year grace period...or was
>last I heard; it's been a while).
>

You're assuming that Cisco filed its patent application after 
publication of that draft.  That's a bad assumption.  Furthermore, 
under the terms of the Patent Co-operation Treaty, if they've filed in 
any of the signatory countries -- and those include the U.S., most of 
the EU, Japan, etc. -- their priority date is as of the original filing 
date; they have a while before deciding whether or not to file in those 
other countries.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb