Re: [Idr] IPR in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-14 [was: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-14]

Hi Serpil,

To me this looks very clear.

You have filed 2 patents in 2015 describing an idea which was invented by
completely different set of inventors in 2010-2011 without even sharing
this information with the original authors.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160248663A1/

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170104676A1/

You have also filed a 3rd patent in 2015 which documents your
implementation innovation to automatically allocate a logical IGP root
based on the client address. Cool innovation, but as this is not part of
the current document it is irrelevant to this discussion.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160248658A1/

To me the next steps are obvious:

Option 1 - Cisco formally discloses the first two patents and IDR WG will
decided if this is of any barrier to progress the document further

Option 2 - Cisco withdraws those two patents

Thx,
Robert.

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 12:09 AM, Serpil Bayraktar (serpil) <
serpil@cisco.com> wrote:

>
>
> Hey Robert,
>
>
>
> I think there is a big misunderstanding here. I have the data to back up
> what I said. The question is how do we go about discussing and resolving it
> gracefully. I am happy to provide the data and work with you and John
> towards a resolution.
>
>
>
> Serpil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Robert Raszuk <
> robert@raszuk.net>
> *Date: *Friday, October 13, 2017 at 2:32 PM
> *To: *"John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>
> *Cc: *idr wg <idr@ietf.org>, Kevin Wang <kfwang@juniper.net>
> *Subject: *Re: [Idr] IPR in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-14
> [was: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-14]
>
>
>
> Hi John and WG,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your note.
>
>
>
> While I am still in process of getting full clarification from Cisco on
> what has been filed without authors knowledge I think the message you got
> from Serpil is incorrect.
>
>
>
> To the best of my current understanding cisco filed some patents with
> claims describing implementation solutions used to implement ideas from ORR
> document not to claim IPR rights to such ideas itself.
>
>
>
> Both are very different and I do not understand while the former would in
> any way impact the IETF process.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Robert.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 13, 2017 4:53 PM, "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> On Oct 6, 2017, at 1:30 PM, John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> wrote:
> > Authors, please confirm that any relevant IPR has been disclosed.
>
>
> I was just told by Serpil Bayraktar that Cisco has IPR related to this
> spec. She is working with their legal department to disclose it, and of
> course as soon as the disclosure is available we'll notify the WG.
>
> Naturally we will keep the WGLC open until the IPR disclosure has been
> published and the WG has had a chance to consider it.
>
> I want to thank Serpil for her diligence in bringing this to my attention
> as soon as she became aware of it. This is as good a time as any to remind
> everyone of the Note Well we all see multiple times per meeting as well as
> when we sign up for a mailing list: https://www.ietf.org/about/
> note-well.html. In particular, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/
> rfc/rfc8179.txt, "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology", which
> is linked from the Note Well, which describes the who, what and when in
> detail. Let me quote the beginning of the Note Well here:
>
> "Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as
> all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made within
> the context of an IETF activity is considered an "IETF Contribution". Such
> statements include oral statements in IETF sessions, as well as written and
> electronic communications made at any time or place..."
>
> and so on.
>
> While we're at it, I will note that four of the authors -- Robert Raszuk,
> Bruno Decraene, Eric Aman, and Adam Chappell -- have said they didn't know
> of any IPR, so presumably this comes as a surprise to them. I have not seen
> replies to this question from Stephane Litkowski, Christian Cassar or Kevin
> Wang yet, I've cc'd them.
>
> Regards,
>
> --John
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
>
>