RE: Nokia Patent discussion FW: [Dime] First results on Diameter vs. RadSec patent research:EP1147635

["David B. Nelson" <dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com>]

> Non-assert statements like this are widely used in the IETF,
> as they are believed to provide sufficient defensive protection
> for the owner, while still allowing implementers and users to 
> exercise the protected technology without a license and for 
> free, as long as they behave similarly nice...

It is true that "non-assert" IPR statements are frequently issued these
days.

> In that, non-asserts are believed to be compatible with most 
> open source licenses.

Compatible?  What does that mean?

A reciprocal non-assert is not quite the same thing as open source.  Open
source has to do with copyright IPR, not patent IPR.  Additionally,
reciprocal non-asserts would appear to apply to all patents that an
organization may hold, not only those that are related to standards.  In
that regard, it is tantamount to an implicit (and broad) cross-licensing
agreement, which would include patents covering proprietary technology as
well as open standards based technology.

Still, it is better than nothing, and very useful to companies that don't
intend to enforce _any_ of their patent portfolio against infringement by
the non-assert grantors.  Of course, it also works out fine for companies
that don't have patents to enforce.  :-)

Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.



--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>