Re: [Roll] RPL Patents

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Wed, 20 January 2010 15:36 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: roll@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBC333A681E for <roll@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 07:36:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8AHKWBgk1yz6 for <roll@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 07:36:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.166.172.106]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0ABC3A6452 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 07:36:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.0) with ESMTP id o0KFaSVQ018733 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:36:28 +0100
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o0KFaSlZ030526 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:36:28 +0100 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.133.173]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id o0KFaRKI010019 for <roll@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:36:28 +0100
Message-ID: <4B5722FB.2080406@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:36:27 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: roll@ietf.org
References: <942450.58477.qm@web113901.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D010DD4FC@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <6A2A459175DABE4BB11DE2026AA50A5D010DD4FC@XMB-AMS-107.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Roll] RPL Patents
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:36:34 -0000

Le 20/01/2010 07:58, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) a écrit :
> 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

YEs, I thought the same, but after digging I realize the above statement
pertains to :

           draft-thubert-roll-fundamentals-01

whereas the statement forwarded by 'Rav' pertains to another draft:

                   draft-dt-roll-rpl

So we end up with two Cisco IPR statements, which is good IMHO.  My
interest, in this RoLL landscape, is whether there's somebody else than 
Cisco claiming IPR on RoLL technologies and whether the different claims 
converge to the benefit of everybody else.

Alex

>
> 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
> _______________________________________________ Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>