[cabf_validation] [cabfPAG] Domain Validation Methods Proposal

[Jeremy Rowley]

Gotcha – this is just a discussion on the scope and applicability of the policy. Makes sense, especially with how loose the essential claim term is.

From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 1:56 PM
To: Jeremy Rowley
Cc: kirk_hall at trendmicro.com; pag at cabforum.org; validation at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfPAG] Domain Validation Methods Proposal



On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Jeremy Rowley <jeremy.rowley at digicert.com<mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>> wrote:
Ah – thank. But how do you discuss whether there is patent issues without first discussing the patents disclosed?

The first and fundamental issue is to understand how the IPR policy applies to the section at all. You can't have meaningful discussion of the patents if the IPR policy doesn't apply.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://cabforum.org/pipermail/validation/attachments/20150729/7a7fb3e0/attachment.html