Re: [Geopriv] IPR disclosure on draft-ietf-geopriv-deref-protocol

On 7/19/2012 1:50 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> I see no reason not to proceed.  The usual caveats apply.
>
> On 19 July 2012 13:28, Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net> wrote:
>> I agree.  I have read the patent and do not believe there is a problem with respect to implementing deref.
Actually I disagree...
>> I suppose it would be possible to use deref to build a system which violates the patent, but I believe that most uses won't, and therefore I think we should proceed.

You need to understand that the use of any encrypted transport takes 
care of the signing component. Also notice there is no specification of 
the bit density of the signature. It was intended to allow a variable 
(selectable signing process including the use of zero-bit signatures per 
the Haber models also previously part of several Bell Labs patents.

So - while I agree that using localized references may not violate the 
patent the last three independent claims are the issue.  As I also said 
we will license the IP but not under IETF BCP rules.

If the location statement per Ninth Circuit rules is an IP address the 
issue is toast. The location code (the address) signed by the transport 
- poof... its done.

Todd Glassey
>>
>> IANAL
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> On Jul 19, 2012, at 4:09 PM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
>>
>>> <hat type="individual" />
>>>
>>> Having read the patent, I do not think that it is required to implement draft-ietf-geopriv-deref-protocol.  As I understand it, the patent covers a location-based access control system, which could use deref, but which is not a requirement of deref.
>>>
>>> So I would be OK with deref proceeding in spite of this IPR claim.
>>>
>>> --Richard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 19, 2012, at 3:57 PM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear GEOPRIV,
>>>>
>>>> An IPR disclosure has been filed against a GEOPPRIV document, draft-ietf-geopriv-deref-protocol.  This document has been through working group last call, IETF last call, and IESG approval.  Its last DISCUSS was cleared 12 July 2012, but Robert is delaying final approval until this IPR question has been resolved.
>>>>
>>>> Please send comment to the list by Friday, 20 July 2012, if you have concerns related to this IPR disclosure.
>>>>
>>>> Note that the patent disclosed in this disclosure was also disclosed with regard to other GEOPRIV documents that proceeded to publication:
>>>> RFC 3693: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/960/>
>>>> RFC 4079: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/959/>
>>>> RFC 4119: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/958/>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> GEOPRIV Chairs
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Geopriv mailing list
>>>> Geopriv@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Geopriv mailing list
>>> Geopriv@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>> _______________________________________________
>> Geopriv mailing list
>> Geopriv@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5141 - Release Date: 07/19/12
>
>

-- 
//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.