Re: RIM patents a URN (and ignores IETF IPR rules)

["Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>]

In this particular case, the patent was published on Jan. 4, 2007, so
it's difficult to imagine any valid reason to not have disclosed then.

Cheers,
Andy

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Fred Baker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> In my company's case, we file IPR disclosures on patent applications as well
> as allowed claims. That is consistent with our corporate policy of
> encouraging innovation and patenting defensively; our disclosures as a rule
> include the fact that we do not seek monetary reward unless another party
> would rather trade IPR licenses mediated by expensive lawyers than accept a
> free RFC 1988 license.
>
> One of the concerns with filing IPR-laden concepts in a standard without
> disclosure is that courts have been known to disallow the protections a
> patent provides when IPR has been disguised in the standards process. The
> IETF policy of disclosure is there to protect your patent rights, not
> disrupt them.
>
> Your patent attorneys may want to rethink that matter.
>
> On Nov 20, 2009, at 9:38 AM, Michael Montemurro wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I understand the community’s concerns regarding the timeliness of the
>> disclosure.  As I’m sure everyone can understand, as employees of
>> companies we are bound by confidentiality obligations and, in
>> addition, cannot always control our company’s internal processes.  The
>> community’s concerns have been brought to the attention of my employer
>> and they are in the process of evaluating the concerns.  My company
>> has asked for your patience while they take the time to evaluate the
>> concerns and determine if there is an appropriate course of action in
>> this matter to alleviate the concerns of the community.
>>
>> Your understanding is appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Mike