Re: [NSIS] IPR Disclosure: The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-nsis-tunnel-13

["Calvin Chu" <[e-mail]>]

All,

Is the Cisco style IPR disclosure the preferred format? The patent
reciprocity isn't a good fit for us (as a non-profit) but this spells
out a possible royalty as an option. 

Based on various comments, I'm going to guess that no one here is
objecting to free experimental use, and free open-source use.  

So one point of contention is Columbia's failure to submit this on time.
For this, I can offer my sincere apologies.  I was notified of this
unfortunately late in the game and it's outside of my ability to fix
this point.

The other point of contention is the FRAND terms in the situation it
becomes a protocol standard, and even then, only in the non-open source
case.  

Is the issue: A) The fact that the fee is unknown B) The fact that there
is a fee at all or C) desire to see better conformance of disclosure
such as use of the Cisco style IPR disclosure

Regards,

Calvin Chu
Senior Licensing Officer
Columbia Technology Ventures
http://techventures.columbia.edu
Tel: [phone]
Twitter: cchu


-----Original Message-----
From: Georgios Karagiannis [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 1:56 AM
To: Calvin Chu; Al Morton; Jukka Manner
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [NSIS] IPR Disclosure: The Trustees of Columbia University
in the City of New York's Statement about IPR related to
draft-ietf-nsis-tunnel-13

Hi Calvin

Regarding the situation that the document becomes a protocol standard,
could you use instead of the FRAND terms, a similar disclosure statement
as the one that is commonly used in the IETF. For example, below you can
see  a CISCO disclosure statement:

http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/817/

Best regards,
Georgios

On 12/8/2010, "Calvin Chu" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Yes. If it is Experimental Status, it is free, no need or obligation to
>notify us.  Unless you want to.
>
>Calvin Chu
>Senior Licensing Officer
>Columbia Technology Ventures
>http://techventures.columbia.edu
>Tel: [phone]
>Twitter: cchu
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Al Morton [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 4:00 PM
>To: Jukka Manner; Calvin Chu
>Cc: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [NSIS] IPR Disclosure: The Trustees of Columbia University
>in the City of New York's Statement about IPR related to
>draft-ietf-nsis-tunnel-13
>
>I'd particularly like to know if the terms mean this:
>
>If the draft is published in Experimental status,
>then the IPR is free (forever).
>
>Al
>
>At 03:27 PM 12/8/2010, Jukka Manner wrote:
>>Hi Calvin, I'm not an expert in how people should or should not
>>disclose and phrase ipr statements. I hope other people on this list
>>who are more experienced could provide guidance on how to resolve
>>this issue in a positive way.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Jukka
>>
>>On 8.12.2010 20:17, Calvin Chu wrote:
>>>All,
>>>
>>>I've just subscribed to the list so I'm trying to catch up to the
>>>current conversation.
>>>
>>>I'm open to modifying the terms, please send me suggestions.  As to
>>>whether Columbia would just modify the terms arbitrarily later, I
>could
>>>get it into writing if that helps.
>>>
>>>I've been informed there are some questions regarding the specific
>FRAND
>>>terms in non-open source commercial situations. My thoughts were to
>set
>>>a simple flat fee for that sole situation.   If this is reasonable, I
>>>can defer to members of this list to suggest what may be fair.  If
>this
>>>does not sound reasonable, I'll do my best to make things right by
>this
>>>list members, after all, Columbia neglected to declare on time.
>>>
>>>Best regards,
>>>
>>>Calvin Chu
>>>Senior Licensing Officer
>>>Columbia Technology Ventures
>>>http://techventures.columbia.edu
>>>Tel: [phone]
>>>Twitter: cchu
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>Of
>>>Roland Bless
>>>Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 4:24 AM
>>>To: Fu, Xiaoming
>>>Cc: Jukka Manner; [e-mail]
>>>Subject: Re: [NSIS] IPR Disclosure: The Trustees of Columbia
>University
>>>in the City of New York's Statement about IPR related to
>>>draft-ietf-nsis-tunnel-13
>>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>[sorry, previous message was cut, I accidentally hit the send button
>>>instead of the edit menu :-)]
>>>
>>>On 08.12.2010 08:55, Fu, Xiaoming wrote:
>>>>I would vote for c).
>>>
>>>It's not clear to me what prevents the Columbia University
>>>from changing terms back later if they are changing the terms
>>>now on our request?
>>>
>>>>a) Do members of the WG accept those terms,
>>>>b) Do you want to redesign the protocol to work around the IPR,
>>>>c) Do you want to ask Columbia to modify the terms, or
>>>>d) Do we drop the document from the WG (authors can still pursue
>>>publications through the independent track)?
>>>
>>>Jukka said:
>>>>Please indicate your preference within two weeks, by Friday 17th at:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.doodle.com/mb2gvfit64bnya99
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>   Roland
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>nsis mailing list
>>>[e-mail]
>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis
>>
>>--
>>Jukka MJ Manner, Professor, PhD.  Phone:  +358+(0)9+470 22481
>>Aalto University                  Mobile: +358+(0)50+5112973
>>Department of Communications      Fax:    +358+(0)9+470 22474
>>and Networking (Comnet)           Office: G320a (Otakaari 5A)
>>P.O. Box 13000, FIN-00076 Aalto   E-mail: [e-mail]
>>Finland                           www.netlab.hut.fi/~jmanner/
>>_______________________________________________
>>nsis mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis
>
>_______________________________________________
>nsis mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis