Re: [Rmt] Posting of IPR Disclosure related to QUALCOMM Incorporated's Statement about IPR related to RFC 5170

Vincent,
The December 2007 update to the DF IPR declaration on then  changed the IPR declaration from "No" to "Yes" in answer to the question "Are there any unpublished patent applications".  The reason we did this at the time is because we realized that an additional element had been added to the ldpc draft at the time that was relevant to one of our unpublished patent applications at the time, which eventually became U.S. Patent No. 7,418,651 that issued Aug. 26 2008, and also Publication number 20090031199 (these two have the same common patent specification).  During the course of the process of acquisition by Qualcomm, we realized that this same element was also relevant to one of our earlier patent specifications, which is why we added the list of the remaining 8 new items listed (they all have the same common patent specification, just different claim sets).

One other change worthy of mention in the newest IPR declaration is that we have change the terms from "Licensing terms are available upon request" to "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All Implementers with Possible Royalty/Fee".

We have been adhering to the IETF policy, and we will continue to adhere to it.
Best, Mike

On 9/21/09 6:12 AM, "Vincent Roca" <vincent.roca@inrialpes.fr> wrote:

Mike,

I have a comment W.R.T. your IPR disclosure against RFC 5170:
        https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1184/

The IPR disclosure #1184 updates the disclosures #637 and #908,
issued respectively in October 2005 and December 2007.
        https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/637/
        https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/908/
However the new disclosure mentions 13 patents, whereas the previous
ones mention 3 patents. Hence my remarks:

You know that IETF participants MUST disclose any IPR they are aware of
"as soon as reasonably possible" (RFC3979/section 6.2.2). You and Mark
said in a separate email exchange in April that "[DF] have followed and
are following RFC3979".

So why did you wait almost 4 years to disclose your additional 10
patents? Where is the truth?

Or, said differently: you recognized during 4 years that the additional
10 patents of disclosure #1184 were not applicable to RFC 5170, since
they were not mentioned at all. So what happened? I'd like to understand.

Regards,

    Vincent

IETF Secretariat wrote:
> Dear Vincent Roca, Christoph Neumann, David Furodet:
>
> An IPR disclosure that pertains to your RFC entitled "Low Density Parity Check
> (LDPC) Staircase and Triangle Forward Error Correction (FEC) Schemes" (RFC5170)
> was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2009-09-08 and has been posted on the
> "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures"
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1184/). The title of the IPR disclosure is
> "QUALCOMM Incorporated's Statement about IPR related to RFC 5170."
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rmt mailing list
> Rmt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt