[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IPR Notice

I agree that the devil is in the details, and each implementer
has to take their own decisions. But if the IETF can't
take IPR disclosures at face value, we may as well give up.
There is no real world in which patent claims will not
be made.

    Brian

Tony Li wrote:


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