[Roll] Roll IPR issues

[Dan Lang <[e-mail]>]

Hi All:

I understand that several people on this mailer have raised questions
about Cisco's IPR commitment for RPL, and about which Cisco patents
cover which parts of the RPL specification.  I'll address both of these
points below.  First, a disclaimer:  Even though I am a lawyer for
Cisco, I am not giving you legal advice;  that can only come from your
own legal counsel.

Preliminarily, all standards organizations grapple in some way with IPR
issues because formulating a standard often involves incorporating the
intellectual property of one or more participants.  In some
organizations such as the ITU and IEEE, virtually all the contributors
simply commit to license their essential IPR on reasonable and
non-discriminatory terms, leaving themselves free to to later charge
royalties that are not exactly specified.  Other organizations such as
the W3C insist that IPR be licensed on a royalty-free basis.  The IETF
for its part does not have a royalty-free requirement and there is a
range of licensing commitments that are used by participants.

Turning now to RPL, the exact language of Cisco's commitment is at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-dt-roll-rpl-01.txt.
This is a legal statement and again, although IAAL, remember that I am
not your legal counsel, so my comments are here to help you understand
some of the underlying issues and not to provide an interpretation.
I'll focus on the issues that people have asked about.

First, Cisco promises not to sue anyone for products that implement the
standard under any of its essential patents.  Even though Cisco lists
several patents and patent applications in its disclosure, its promise
not to sue is not limited to those patent assets, but to *any* Cisco
essential patents.  In contrast to this promise to not assert patents,
many participants in other IETF WGs have made commitments that allow for
royalty-bearing licenses on their disclosed IPR.

Second, Cisco has a "defensive suspension" provision, which allows Cisco
to assert those essential patents against someone who asserts their own
patent (whether or not related to RPL) against Cisco ("...Cisco retains
the right to assert its patents (including the right to claim past
royalties) against any party that asserts a patent it owns or controls
(either directly or indirectly) against Cisco or any of Cisco's
affiliates or successors in title or against any products of Cisco or
any products of any of Cisco's affiliates either alone or in combination
with other products").  The wording of our statement may seem complex to
a lay reader, but in fact similar statements are commonly used by other
IETF participants.  Here are some examples that are similar, if not
exactly identical to, Cisco's defensive suspension terms:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1173/  (Juniper)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1254/  (Huawei)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1244/  (Ericsson)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/947/  (H3C Technology)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1170/  (Vidyo)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1253/  (Verizon)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1235/  (Apple)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/674/  (Digital Fountain)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/935/  (Avaya)

Indeed, there are numerous I-Ds and RFCs that have progressed and
succeeded with this type of statement even where there may be patent
coverage.  The majority of Internet technologies are patented, some
under more onerous licensing conditions than ours above, and have been
deployed successfully for years.

We see the practice of making this kind of declaration (combining our  
commitment to not assert and the "defensive suspension") on the vast  
majority
of IETF I-Ds and RFCs where we have essential patents as being both
generous and effective in driving open standards and the development  
of the Internet.
   The IETF and Cisco have extensive positive experience with this  
style of statement,
gathered over years of development, deployment, and use.

Finally, questions have been raised on the mailer about which portions
of the specification are covered by Cisco patents.  It is natural to be
interested in this question but we have good reasons for not answering
it.  Infringement analysis and claim construction are legal questions
which are best answered by your own legal advisers and not by Cisco
lawyers or engineers.   Furthermore, if even if we presented our own  
current views
  they would not reflect later changes in patent claims during  
prosecution or even changes in the
specification.

I hope that this helps clarify the issues and move the discussion to
resolution.

Best regards,

Dan Lang




Dan Lang
Director, Intellectual Property
Legal Services
Cisco Systems, Inc.