Re: [dhcwg] IPR statement related to draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-X.txt

On Friday 06 February 2004 15:53, Ted Lemon wrote:

> In this case, we have a patent on some very obvious technology that in
> no way merits a patent.   We are being asked, as a group, to promote
> this technology.   I am against promoting this technology if
> PacketFront's purpose in acquiring this patent is to charge people
> royalties under some definition of "reasonable."  I am pushing back on
> this in hopes that PacketFront will clarify their intentions.   I
> suspect that they acquired this patent for defensive reasons, and I
> have complete sympathy with that, but if that is the case, I want them
> to change the stated terms to reflect that.   If I don't push back,
> PacketFront has no reason to change their terms, and this creates
> uncertainty for implementors of DHCP: will PacketFront sue me?   Will
> their license terms meet *my* definition of reasonable?

I don't see why it's unreasonable to ask for IPR statements that guarantee 
royalty-free implementation with reciprocity, in return for promotion of the 
patented technology (as well as the expertise of this group).

IMO, by not requiring a royalty-free implementation guarantee, we're outright 
inviting WG members to start patenting everything they can in order to get 
some kind of insurance against other patent holders. That's not the kind of 
environment I'd like to see this WG in.

- Bud

Bud Millwood
Weird Solutions, Inc.
http://www.weird-solutions.com
tel: +46 8 758 3700
fax: +46 8 758 3687
mailto:budm@weird-solutions.com

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg