Re: [Roll] RPL Patents

I don't think that is at all true.  The original IPR statement published was applicable only to draft-thubert-roll-fundamentals.  There was no indication for many months that the IPR statment made about draft-thubert-roll-fundamentals was at all applicable to the work coming from the RPL DT.

I think it is very unfortunate that this information was not made available to the working long long ago so that before investing these many months of effort we could have understood that the design was encumbered with Cisco intellectual property.

You were on the DT, so I don't understand why the IPR statement about the output of the DT was not made months ago and also why when the IPR was published, why didn't anyone send it to the ROLL list???

- Rav

--- On Wed, 1/20/10, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:

> From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>
> Subject: RE: [Roll] RPL Patents
> To: "Ietf Roll" <ietfroll@yahoo.com>, roll@ietf.org
> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 6:58 AM
> Hi:
> 
> Just to make things straight, Cisco published to IETF and
> announced that
> IPR on April 16th to the ROLL ML:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg01181.html
> 
> 
> There has been some administrative delay porting the
> message to the RPL
> draft, but the content is basically the same.
> 
> Cheers;
> 
> Pascal
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: roll-bounces@ietf.org
> [mailto:roll-bounces@ietf.org]
> On Behalf Of
> Ietf Roll
> Sent: mardi 19 janvier 2010 23:05
> To: roll@ietf.org
> Subject: [Roll] RPL Patents
> 
> ROLLers,
>   Did anyone see the Cisco announcement about IPR in
> RPL.  If you didn't
> it was probably because it was only sent to the IETF IPR
> list.  I don't
> know why it wasn't sent to the ROLL list.  If you
> didn't see it here is
> a link:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-announce/current/msg00167.html
> 
> I'm a bit confused and concerned that this IPR annoucement
> was sent so
> late in the process (December 3) - given that Cisco folks
> were working
> on the design team from the beginning.  We are now so
> late in the design
> and development that it would be nearly impossible for us
> to figure out
> how avoid this patent.
> 
> There is a free license to use the patent in RPL so long as
> you and your
> company doesn't sue Cisco over ANY other patent for
> ANYTHING.
> 
> Can we avoid the use of the patented technology in
> RPL?  Should we?  Do
> we want to?
> 
> Did this IPR announcement come too late?
> 
>     Rav
> 
> 
>       
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> 