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

On Feb 6, 2004, at 2:36 PM, John Schnizlein wrote:
> 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?

Because the "RAND statement" is insufficient.   If I am distributing 
open-source software, I can't afford to pay you a royalty on the 
offchance that someone might use your patented technique, even if the 
royalty is "reasonable" by some standard.   I don't think it's even 
generally to your advantage to use the RAND terms, because it means 
that your devices can't be supported by open-source software.   I 
suppose it might sell a few extra copies of Network Registrar.

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

Yup.   I have no idea to what this statement applies.   I'm no happier 
about it than I am about Cisco's statement, but at this point it's a 
fait accompli, so there's no point in arguing about it.   This IPR 
statement was also never announced to the WG.

> 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"

No.   Unfortunately, the present legal situation is that they can.   If 
you don't like that, contact your congresscritter - don't complain to 
me.

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

If you were to read the actual messages in the thread to which you were 
responding, you would already know the answer to this question.

> 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.

Putting an IPR statement at the bottom of an obscure draft that defines 
something very simple and obvious, that nobody would ever expect 
anybody to patent, isn't sufficient.   If you are claiming a patent on 
something, you should say so explicitly when you announce the draft, or 
when, subsequent to announcing the draft, you decide to add the IPR 
statement.   It has apparently become our collective job to read the 
IPR statement at the bottom of every copy of every draft that goes by 
to make sure there's no stealth patent claim, but tragically I wasn't 
aware of this until today.   Normally, I read drafts for technical 
issues, not for legal issues.   :'(

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