RE: IPR Notice

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

I simply do not agree.  IETF should say: Do not bring your IPR to the
IETF unless you are giving it away with NO STRINGS attached. Simple.  If
you do it will not be used.  We are certainly capable of inventing our
own work based on the many persons in this community. I have seen cases
in the past where good intentioned engineers bring work to the IETF and
then their company requires IPR.  But not lately.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brc@zurich.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 4:25 AM
> To: Tony Li
> Cc: Bound, Jim; Jari Arkko; tom.petch; Geoff Huston; shim6@psg.com
> Subject: 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> > 
> > 
>