RE: clarification on my mic comments on HBA's

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

Also one does not have to be a lawyer to read any disclosure that states
I will not enforce a patent on an IETF implemented work unless the
entity enforces a patent on the company holding the patent.

What this issue basiscally says is it is fine to use CGA from Company A.


But, if Company B builds fish tanks in the market and finds out Company
A is also building fish tanks and Company B enforces its patent against
Company A.  The the disclosure from Company A for totally not related
IETF CGA work says it can now enforce its CGA patent on Company B.

As CGA could be potentially widely integrated into all devices and nodes
(become pervasive) I am not clear the IETF should support or this
Working Group (per current rules of engagement as Geof stated) CGA
because of this issue.

That is my input to this working group for discussion and I guess a
decision.

Best,
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-shim6@psg.com [mailto:owner-shim6@psg.com] On 
> Behalf Of Geoff Huston
> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:21 AM
> To: Joe Abley; Jari Arkko
> Cc: john.loughney@nokia.com; shim6@psg.com; Mark Townsley
> Subject: Re: clarification on my mic comments on HBA's
> 
> At 04:16 AM 13/07/2006, Joe Abley wrote:
> 
> >On 11-Jul-2006, at 13:44, Jari Arkko wrote:
> >
> >>In any case, to move forward I can ask our IPR department to make a 
> >>human readable explanation of what the license means in 
> practise. This 
> >>hopefully helps the people in the WG to make an informed 
> decision. Do 
> >>you think that would be useful?
> >
> >I am still confused as to why non-lawyers are being asked to 
> indicate 
> >comfort with the IPR issues as a prerequisite to the specifications 
> >proceeding, when it's so unclear as (a) whether any 
> indicated comfort 
> >really means anything, and (b) how anybody should go about gauging 
> >their own comfort when they are not qualified to understand the 
> >question.
> >
> >This seems like something the working group should expect 
> the IETF as 
> >an organisation to find properly-qualified opinions on. I don't 
> >understand why the organisation is instead seeking opinions 
> from self- 
> >professed non-lawyers in the working group.
> 
> 
> Joe,
> 
> I appreciate your sentiment, and can only say to you that 
> Kurtis and myself, as the WG Chairs, have raised this matter 
> in a similar style and with similar content with the Area 
> Directors, and, as I informed the WG meeting earlier this 
> week, we were informed by the ADs that this was seen as a 
> matter that was encompassed by the Working Group rough 
> consensus decision making process. i.e. we had to work it out 
> ourselves as a WG. 
> Hence the rough straw poll in the WG meeting on Monday (with 
> approximately equal levels of comfort and discomfort being 
> shown in response to the chairs' query of the working group) 
> and hence the continuation of this discussion here.
> 
> I am happy to take your question and refer it to the ADs as 
> being illustrative of the level of comfort of some working 
> group members when being asked to consider detailed IPR 
> matters as they pertain to WG drafts (and have cc'ed the ADs 
> in this response accordingly).
> 
> I suspect that the procedural issue you have raised is one 
> that the Working Group cannot readily resolve, given the AD 
> position on this matter. You may want to raise your concern 
> in IETF procedure-related forums, such as the IPR working 
> group (http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipr-charter.html)
> 
> regards,
> 
>     Geoff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>