[manet] IPR issue for TBRPF
ogier@erg.sri.com Wed, 24 April 2002 19:27 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04472 for <manet-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:27:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA23220; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:46:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA23189 for <manet@ns.ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:46:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from pit.erg.sri.com (pit.erg.sri.com [128.18.100.28]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18296 for <manet@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:46:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from pit.erg.sri.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pit.erg.sri.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA28596; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:43:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200204241843.LAA28596@pit.erg.sri.com>
To: fred@cisco.com
CC: manet@ietf.org
From: ogier@erg.sri.com
Reply-to: ogier@erg.sri.com
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:43:39 -0700
Subject: [manet] IPR issue for TBRPF
Sender: manet-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: manet-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
Hi Fred, Your draft titled "An outsider's view of MANET" <draft-baker-manet-review-01>, contains the following paragraph: TBRPF is interesting, and should work correctly, although the operational utility of some of its optimizations may be open to question in a given network. SRI has aggressively marketed TBRPF and its IPRs to the working group. The fact that a patent has been applied for on certain aspects is, however, severely limiting politically. If there is any way in which the IETF is absolutely predictable, it is that when confronted with a choice between a proposal encumbered with IPR issues and an unencumbered proposal, it will choose the unencumbered one. Your statement "SRI has aggressively marketed TBRPF and its IPRs to the working group" seems to imply that SRI wants to retain IP rights even if TBRPF becomes an IETF standard. That is not true. As per our Patent Rights Statement in the TBRPF draft, we will relinquish all patent rights if TBRPF becomes a standard. In addition, anyone may implement TBRPF, or use our software, for purposes related to IETF standardization. (This is true even if TBRPF is placed on "experimental track" for an arbitrarily long period of time.) The purpose of SRI's patent application is to retain IP rights if TBRPF does NOT become a standard. Why should SRI give up its rights to TBRPF if it is not accepted by the IETF, but nonetheless is useful in some situations and a valuable asset to the company? Does your statement "when confronted with a choice between a proposal encumbered with IPR issues and an unencumbered proposal, it will choose the unencumbered one", still apply when all IP rights are to be relinquished upon standardization? If so, can you give me an example? Under these conditions, I would not say we have "agressively marketed" TBPRF, but we have agressively demonstrated the benefits of TBRPF versus other protocols, as part of our obligations to our government clients, who requested that we work toward the standardization of a higher performance protocol for military networks. Richard ----------------------- Richard Ogier Sr. Research Engineer SRI International 333 Ravenswood Ave. Menlo Park, CA 94025 Tel: 650-859-4216 Fax: 650-859-4812 Email: ogier@erg.sri.com TBRPF web site: http://www.erg.sri.com/projects/tbrpf/ ------------------------ _______________________________________________ manet mailing list manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
- [manet] IPR issue for TBRPF ogier
- [manet] Re: IPR issue for TBRPF Fred Baker
- Re: [manet] Re: IPR issue for TBRPF ogier
- Re: [manet] Re: IPR issue for TBRPF Pekka Savola
- Re: [manet] Re: IPR issue for TBRPF ogier
- [manet] Re: IPR issue for TBRPF ogier