RE: Specific problems in the Ericsson IPR statement?

[Sam Xia <xiazhongqi@huawei.com>]

Hi, Jari,
Since both Microsoft and Ericsson have announce their patent on CGA, it is
very important to know their attitues from both Microsoft and Ericsson.  I
have heard nothing from Microsoft is free except the patches of WiNDOWS. ):

 Best Regards, Sam Xia 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-shim6@psg.com [mailto:owner-shim6@psg.com] On 
> Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 11:20 PM
> To: Jeroen Massar
> Cc: shim6
> Subject: Re: Specific problems in the Ericsson IPR statement?
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>