Hi All, There are some IPR issues brewing in the NEMO WG that I thought you might want to be aware of (if you are not already). I also have some questions and could use some advice about this issue. I'm forwarding some information from the NEMO chairs, including two attachments: (1) an excerpt from the NEMO minutes from IETF57, and (2) a letter that the NEMO chairs sent to Cisco legal contact (please forgive any odd formatting -- the original was an MS-Word file, and I have sent HTML). To summarize, both Cisco and Nokia have stated that they have IPR claims related to NEMO. Nokia has provided licensing terms that include royalty-free use in open source (sort of), and Cisco has reportedly promised RAND terms across the board, although I can't find a statement to support that. The WG would like Cisco to offer RF terms for open source and/or clarify what parts of the technology is encumbered. So, the chairs wrote a letter to Cisco's legal contact (attached). I have a few questions, and could probably use some advice in this area: - Have other WGs had specifications for which multiple companies had, perhaps competing, IPR claims? Are there any issues to be aware of in this situation? - When a company agrees "not to assert claims" against anyone who implements this techology in open source, how does that apply to companies that use that open source in commercial products? - The Nokia IPR statement doesn't say anything about licensing terms for non-open source use. Is that okay? Any other general advice to offer about what I and/or the WG chairs should or shouldn't do in this situation? Margaret -----Original Message----- From: T.J. Kniveton [mailto:timothy.kniveton@nokia.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 3:53 PM To: ext Thomas Narten; ext Thierry Ernst; Wasserman Margaret (NRC/Boston) Subject: Re: NEMO IPR ext Thomas Narten wrote: >>In chair<->AD meetings, and at the last NEMO wg meeting, and on the NEMO >>mailing list, Erik has suggested that to figure out how to proceed, we >>need to get more information about what the scope and focus of Cisco's >>IPR is, and what part(s) of the NEMO technology it covers. This is also >>noted in the meeting minutes, and I wrote the comments in detail in the >>minutes, if you are interested to know exactly what was said. >> >> > >OK. But,... > >I see no mention in the SF minutes, and there are no ATL minutes for >nemo up on the proceedings page... > Sorry, I meant the minutes from the last meeting (Vienna). See the attached file. >>We have asked the folks from Cisco who participate in NEMO to give more >>information about what is covered. They told us that their patent lawyer >>was unwilling to give any information unless it was requested formally >>by the WG chairs. I also talked to their lawyer (Barr) last year, when >>they made IPR claims on my original draft for NEMO basic support >>(http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/CISCO-draft-kniveton-mobrtr.txt), and he >>did not give much information. >> >> > >OK this makes sense, and I think is OK for the WG to do. I would >assume email would also work, so I hope you've done this too. Can we >see a copy of the letter? > Certainly. See attached file. >>>Normal process is for the IETF Secretariat to be notified of possible >>>IPR, and then the secretariat sends any formal inquiries to IPR >>>holders. >>> >>> >>> >>I wasn't aware that the IETF secretariat would be interested in getting >>involved in IPR affairs at the WG level, but that's good to know. In the >>future, I'll let Harald handle communication regarding IPR and >>clarifying companies' claims. >> >> > >Well, they are at least in the case where IPR is first disclosed and >we want clarification. > OK. > The situation being talked about here goes >beyond that, so is best done at the WG level. > I don't understand. I thought you said before that it should be done at the Secretariat level. >>>Bottom line. If you are sending any sort of "official" (i.e., as >>>chair) IPR notes to vendors, you should coordinate with the ADs. IPR >>>is tricky business... >>> >>> >>> >>Yes, it is. We have talked and coordinated quite a bit with Erik about >>this, and mentioned it a couple of times in meetings with you and Erik, >>so it's not as if we sent some communication out of the blue. >> >> > >Right. I knew about the IPR. What is new is the chairs being involved >in sending notes off to the IPR folk at cisco. That is fairly unusual. > > OK, well it's done now. In the future, we'll go through the Secretariat. TJ
5) IPR Issues - T.J. Kniveton
- Companies participating in IETF process are required to inform WGs about IPR
- Status of IPR on basic draft: Nokia and Cisco have said there may be IPR
related to basic draft.
- TJ has attempted to clear up licensing position on these
- Within the last couple of weeks, Nokia has posted an IPR licensing
statement for the basic draft on the IETF IPR web page, as has Cisco.
- Nokia has arranged Royalty Free (RF) license for open-source implementations
- Cisco has granted Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) license, based
on reciprocity.
* Does WG feel that RF is necessary, or is RAND ok?
- If RF desired, we need to get more information
George Tsirtis: RF (Nokia) is for open source only. So not even RAND otherwise
TJ: For non open-source, general patent license applies (RAND) conforming
to IETF requirements, as stated in the licensing statement.
- Not clear whether Cisco does RF licensing. What does WG wish to do?
Kent Leung: Nokia and Cisco both have RAND at this point, for non-open-source
Erik: Another possibility is to find out more about Nokia IPR, if people are
interested in non-open source implementations. I can also answer general
questions. But this is up to the WG to decide how to proceed.
Once we know something about the claims from patent published or application
or another way, then we have more info about how to proceed. But we have to
have well-informed opinions on how to proceed.
Greg Daley: I had some experience with non-RF licenses in GPL development, and
it really stops the development dead for Linux. So further info from Cisco
would be good; Nokia is cleared up for GPL.
Chan-Wah: Important thing is to know which portion of NEMO basic support the
IPR covers. Can we have scaled-down version not covered by IPR?
Erik: If people want to try to find out more, they could ask companies which
have submitted notices for more info. But you might not get a response from
the lawyers. If people are willing to provide more info, that might be
useful for WG. If WG believes RF for open source, or RF in general is
critical, then we can send that message to the people holding the IPR, and
they might come up with better terms. That has happened in the past in other
working groups.
- Since we are running over time, let's continue this discussion on the list.
Title: 313 Fairchild Dr
|
313 Fairchild Dr. Building B-223 Mountain View, CA 94043 25 September 2003 Robert Barr, Esq. Vice President, Intellectual Property Cisco Systems 170 W. Tasman Dr. San Jose, CA 95134-1706 Dear Mr. Barr: As the chairmen of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)?s Network Mobility (NEMO) working group, we have been requested to contact you in order to clarify statements made by Cisco to the IETF. The NEMO working group has been developing a specification to support Mobile Routers and Network Mobility. This specification is based on an Internet Draft produced by Nokia in 2001, and contributions from other authors before and after this. Subsequent to its publishing, Cisco has submitted IPR claims on both the original Nokia draft, and the derivative NEMO working group draft. The NEMO working group members are concerned about the claims of Intellectual Property regarding the NEMO specification, and would like more information about the specific claims as well as licensing terms proposed by Cisco. Please keep in mind that any response to this letter will be deemed public information and may be shared with the NEMO working group. Here are the questions which remain open; any information you could provide regarding this matter will be appreciated.
In all cases, we request that you state which sections are affected by the disclosure. This was a concern clearly raised amongst the working group members at the last IETF meeting. Please note that the working group is concerned about licensing terms for basic technology that may be part of the NEMO basic support draft. The presence of patent claims without a free license for implementation may hinder or preclude further work on this technology without substantial rework of the underlying mechanisms. Any help you can provide towards making this draft viable would be gratefully received. Sincerely, T.J. Kniveton for Thierry Ernst Nokia WIDE / KEIO University NEMO Working Group Chairs |