Re: Specific problems in the Ericsson IPR statement?

[Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>]

Jeroen Massar wrote:

> Do I read it correctly that this says:
>  - Company X has patent Z
>  - Company X implements this thing
>  - Ericsson implements thing with patent Z
>  - Company X can't protect it's patent as it implement this.

No. I should have included all the details - actually
company X has a choice between 1. The free license,
with an implication to allow use of Z on the same terms,
OR 2. the default Ericsson IETF license which is so called
RAND license (reasonable and non-discriminatory). In
the latter case there is no impact on Z but the license
isn't necessarily free.

Jim's issue was related to what you are asking. He
wanted X to be able to implement Shim6 for free if
Z is in some unrelated field, e.g., steam engines
or CDMA radios. The proposed change that I'll
try to convince to my IPR department to do means
that this would be possible, as long as X is
not simultaneously requiring Ericsson to give
Shim6 IPR for free and asking Ericsson to pay
royalty for some other IETF standards track
RFC.

Just my interpretation, of course.

--Jari