Re: IPR Notice

[Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>]

Brian,

There is allegedly at least one royalty-free IPR agreement floating  
around that stipulates that the licensee not sue the licensor on ANY  
IPR claim.  If this agreed to, then the licensor can turn around and  
violate any number of the licensee's IPR rights with impunity.

If this is accurate, this is an example that shows that royalty-free  
does not necessarily mean  constraint free.  It also does not mean  
'not onerous'.

Caveat emptor,
Tony


On Dec 18, 2006, at 7:11 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> 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