Re: Help with Apple's SSM IPR claim

[Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>]

So, I guess the recommendation to the WG chairs should be to:

 1. Discuss and explicitly gauge consensus within the WG
    on whether the document should go STD track even with
    known IPR

 2. If the WG agrees to not put it to STD with known IPR,
    check if the WG believes Apple should be asked for
    RF licensing. If so, send a request to Apple and start
    a timer.

 3. Otherwise or if Apple did not change their mind on
    timer expiration--publish the doc as Info to get it
    in the archival records.

-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin/

Tuesday, May 20, 2003, 8:10:41 AM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> In message <200305201504.h4KF44319876@windsor.research.att.com>, Bill Fenner wr
> ites:
>>
>>>Yes.  One point made explicitly in the IPR working group is that WGs 
>>>can decline to adopt encumbered technology
>>
>>Unfortunately, the IPR seems to cover the basic concept of SSM
>>(well, my reading is that it only covers the first four hops, or
>>the first two hops if typos can invalidate claims, but that's not
>>important since I am not a lawyer or a judge).
>>
>>The choice in this case is probably to work out the IPR issues or
>>disband the working group.
>>

> That's been the case in the security area, too, on occasion, notably 
> when public key technology was still encumbered.  My point is that the 
> WG has the discretion to accept Apple's terms or give up and go home if 
> they really want royalty-free and Apple won't budge.


>                 --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
>                 http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)