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

[John Schnizlein <[e-mail]>]

Clarification of some mis-information on this subject, and a few questions:

At 09:53 AM 2/6/2004, Ted Lemon wrote:

>The Motorola patent on the relay agent information option has the IPR terms I am asking for.   The reason it has those terms is because I raised a big fuss when Motorola announced that they'd patented it, for the very obvious reason that I'd been involved in developing the RAIO and was upset that Motorola had patented my work.

Let us not forget that this stipulation of royalty-free is unusual.
Most IPR statements claim only the typical RAND statement.
What is the reason for suddenly requiring the unusual IPR statement in DHC?

>In the case of the Motorola patent on DHCP as a whole, whatever that is, 

Following the link Ralph posted, the Motorola-DHCP statement 
includes the usual RAND:

http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/MOTOROLA-DHCP
  The message was received February 2, 2001
  From: "Bawel, Paul (HT-EX)" <[e-mail]>

  Motorola, Inc. has applied for one or more patents relating to the 
  DHCP.  In accordance with the intellectual property rights provisions 
  of the IETF Standards process, Motorola hereby affirms that it is 
  willing to make non-exclusive licenses available under fair, reasonable 
  and non-discriminatory terms with respect to any patent it may be 
  awarded on technology related to the DHCP for parties implementing this 
  standard.  In Motorola ‘s view, such terms would include availability 
  of reciprocal licenses to Motorola, termination of licenses for related 
  lawsuits, etc.

>the WG was never, as far as I can recall, notified that Motorola had made this claim.   In the case of the Cisco patent on DHCP as a whole, again, the WG was never notified of this claim.  

There is no such claim as far as I can tell. 
What is the basis of your assertion?
What is the purpose of this assertion?

> Had the WG been notified of either of these claims, I can assure you that I would have kicked up a fuss.
>
>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.  

Several aspects of the claim on subscriber-id are unusual:
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/PacketFront-IPR.txt
1) the claim was by a company unrelated to the authors, who stated:
   "This document is the result of work done within Cisco Systems."
2) the claim was filed well after the draft was published
3) while the claim failed to include RAND language, it was later
   amended to include this usual statement

Do you want to empower a company unrelated to the authors to block
progress on a specification simply by filing a subjunctive statement:
"that we may obtain intellectual property rights"

> 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. 

At 02:19 PM 2/6/2004, Ted Lemon wrote:

>To clarify, I don't think that there should be a double standard where we hassle PacketFront and Motorola about their IPR terms and don't hassle Cisco.   I think that Cisco should be held to the same standard.   Are any of the drafts about which Cisco has made IPR claims currently in last call?

I agree that Cisco should be held to the same standard as typical 
for a long time in DHC, and still typical elsewhere. That is RAND.

My impression was that PacketFront changed their statement to 
include RAND, which was not a matter of hassling them.

Why is the IPR surprise and repair from PacketFront considered a reason
to demand a new, unusual standard of zero-royalty from Cisco?

Why is Thomas Narten associating the unusual PacketFront episode with
the usual RAND which Cisco filed on the agentopt-radius document?
Note that there was no surprise in that filing since the original draft
draft-droms-agentopt-8021x-00.txt in Nov 2001 included a RAND 
statement with a not-subjunctive patent declaration.

John


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg