Re: IPR Notice

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Jim, since one is a non-assert disclosure and the other
is a royalty-free disclosure, why do you say that?

    Brian

Bound, Jim wrote:
> Makes it even more scary to implement IMHO as product.
> /jim 
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-shim6@psg.com [mailto:owner-shim6@psg.com] On 
> > Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 4:34 AM
> > To: tom.petch
> > Cc: Geoff Huston; shim6@psg.com
> > Subject: Re: IPR Notice
> >
> >
> >
> > > > How does this affect the Ericsson claim last April which, as I 
> > > > recall, said that Ericsson would not assert its rights 
> >
> > unless anyone 
> >
> > > > claimed against Ericsson.
> > > > Does this claim constitute such a claim against Ericsson?
> >
> > I am not a lawyer either, but I believe that is something 
> > that affects only those two companies, i.e. Microsoft and 
> > Ericsson. FWIW, my understanding is that this does not change 
> > Ericsson's thinking or implementation plans.
> >
> > For everyone else, nothing changed except that there is now a 
> > second IPR declaration. The relevant information in the new 
> > IPR declaration is Microsoft's conditions, i.e., no royalty 
> > etc. Personally, those conditions look fine to me.
> >
> > --Jari