Re: [Rats] IPR statements about draft-ietf-rats-architecture

["Eric Voit (evoit)" <[e-mail]>]

I am not a lawyer.  And this is not legal advice.   But here are my thoughts:

* It is possible to look at Intel's IPR reference (to Section 3.0 & 3.1).  And it is possible to see what existed in draft-ietf-rats-architecture prior to Intel's IPR priority date of 2020-06-18.  The only obvious new thing I see is the Reference Value Provider.

* And if people are worried about the general idea of reference value providers, this idea was also included in other RATS draft prior to the Intel's IPR date.  (E.g., draft-ietf-rats-tpm-based-network-device-attest-00, Section 1.4.)

What would actually worry me is if the core ideas of the document were not demonstrated prior to the priority date.  Based on this I am *guessing* that there are ways of realizing the architecture which Intel sees.  And they are being extra careful about claiming IPR on how the architecture might be embodied.  But again this is an absolute *guess*.  

So while patents:
 * are not always sane, 
 * and have been granted where there is obvious prior art, 
 * and fixing improperly granted claims is very expensive,
 * and perhaps something in this particular IPR submission is incorrect (e.g., was this really a continuation with an earlier priority date?)
I am not worrying overmuch about this particular IPR upon this architecture document.  

Honestly, I see more overall IPR risk if we slowing down progress in RATS.  Slowing means there will be fewer/newer prior art public references when other patents inevitably surface. 

Eric

P.S.: The best answer here would be for Intel to move from "FRAND" to "Free".   Where this is done, patents actually help to protect an industry in early growth.

---------------------
From: RATS <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 12:48 PM
To: Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>; Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Rats] IPR statements about draft-ietf-rats-architecture

Hi Kathleen, 

I wonder how anyone can make a judgment about the IPR situation when we do not have the complete information about it. 
This information needs to be available first before we can proceed. 

I therefore suggest to wait until we have this information so that our legal department can have a look.

Ciao
Hannes

From: RATS <mailto:[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Kathleen Moriarty
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2021 4:37 PM
To: Michael Richardson <mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: mailto:[e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Rats] IPR statements about draft-ietf-rats-architecture

Greetings!

We'll end last call for comments on the IPR submitted Friday of next week, providing a little more than 2 weeks due to the IETF meeting.

Best regards,
Kathleen

On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 8:21 PM Michael Richardson <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:

Nancy Cam-Winget \(ncamwing\) <ncamwing=mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
    > As you note, the shepherd writeup has to include discussion (and
    > conclusion) of the IPR disclosure, NOT of the claims as we are not
    > experts to evaluate them or the validity of any patents.

okay.

In the meantime, could the chairs please request area reviews.
(Last Call is not necessary, nor do we want to wait that long)
The DT lets you ask. Just click "Request Reviews" button.

--
Michael Richardson <mailto:[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide




_______________________________________________
RATS mailing list
mailto:[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.