Re: [paws] Please review IPR disclosure https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2340/

Note that the above Whitespace DB discovery  patent application includes a
reference to a companion Whitespace *protocol* discovery application:

"White space database protocol discovery is further described with
reference to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/339,036 filed Dec. 28,
2011, which is hereby incorporated by reference herein."

Tony

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Don Joslyn <dljoslyn@gmail.com> wrote:

> Try this link:
>
>
> http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=%22White+Space+database+discovery%22&OS=%22White+Space+database+discovery%22&RS=%22White+Space+database+discovery%22
>
> Regards,
> Don
>
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 3:16 AM, Ray Bellis <Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 21 Aug 2014, at 15:54, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
>>
>> > PAWS participants:
>> >
>> > Somehow an IPR disclosure was filed on the PAWS protocol document for
>> which we did not see an announcement:
>> >
>> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2340/
>> >
>> > As far as I can tell from the title (given that the referenced IP is an
>> as-yet-unpublished patent), this applies to the database discovery portion
>> of the protocol. Since we have removed much of that discussion, we expect
>> mostly pre-configuration, and we have yet to (and may never) complete the
>> actual database discovery work, I think this may have no effect on folks
>> implementing the protocol. But I do need to confirm that the WG is aware of
>> this and still thinks it's OK to move forward with the protocol document.
>> >
>> > If there are any objections to moving forward, I need to hear that
>> immediately.
>> >
>> > However, I would like to hear an overt, "Yes, understood, and it's fine
>> to move forward" from some folks who might be implementing the protocol.
>>
>> I’m unable to find the text of the Nokia application, so it’s difficult
>> to assess.
>>
>> I note that they’ve quoted an application date of 29 April 2013, I’d be
>> amazed if there isn’t some prior work relating to database discovery (e.g.
>> the OFCOM spec, or ETSI EN 301 598) although that does depend on exactly
>> what mechanism it is they’re claiming.
>>
>> Given the WG's de-emphasis on DB discovery I see no reason to change
>> course based on this.
>>
>> Ray
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> paws mailing list
>> paws@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> paws mailing list
> paws@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
>
>