Jari Arkko wrote:
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.
That sounds very reasonable to me.Maybe to solve all these IPR constructs, would it be an idea to have a "IETF IPR" document; aka a document which states that "when using a IETF standards track document that one can't sue/pay royalties concerning any of the other companies that have a IETF standards track document involving an IPR". (But then worded correctly ;) IANAL etc.
Greets, Jeroen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature