Re: [v6ops] Mail regarding draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat

On Jan 11, 2013, at 3:55 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/01/2013 01:23, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>> Hui, Deng and v6ops,
>> 
>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>>> thanks for the flag, ron.  imiho
>>> 
>>> "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All Implementers with
>>> Possible Royalty/Fee."
>>> 
>>> is a pretty much a show-stopper
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> As you can see, we have a problem.  The IESG only has this final IPR
>> issue to resolve before publishing 464XLAT.
>> 
>> I see a few ways forward:
>> 
>> 1.  China Mobile can grant free use for the benefit of the IETF and
>> the benefit of global IPv6 adoption and on-going evolution of the
>> Internet
>> 
>> 2.  The IETF can move forward on the basis that the IPR claim is invalid*.
>> 
>> 3.  Other options???
> 
> 4. The IETF can move forward because its rules allow RAND conditions.

Yes, the IETF *can* move forward, but *can* also decide that the IPR is annoying, discourages implementation, and makes possible risks for implements, and so it *can* (I believe) decide not to move forward.

Not saying that it should do this, but..
> 
> There are innumerable IETF standards with RAND disclosures against them.
> We may not like it, but we do it all the time.
> 

Yes, yes we do. We also sometimes decide to choose other, non-encumbered options.

> The summary of the claims (http://ip.com/patfam/en/43370583) is
> very broad. Judging by that, if this disclosure was required, a disclosure
> against draft-huang-behave-bih or RFC 6535 would also have been required.
> However, the prior art for that goes back to RFC 2767, which is way before
> this recent patent.
> 
> It isn't the IETF's job to determine whether a patent is valid. But if
> we have a strong inclination to believe it's invalid, and the disclosure
> in any case meets our rules, we can <shrug>. It's then for implementors
> to decide what to do.
> 
>   Brian

IANAL, nor do I pretend to play one on TV, 
W

> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> CB
>> 
>> *I am not a lawyer, but the 464XLAT draft is just a combination of
>> existing technologies, none of which has IPR.  And, AFAIK [1], it is
>> not legitimate to patent a combination of existing technologies ....
>> which is what the IPR claim is.  NAT-PT goes back to the year 2000 as prior art.
>> 
>> So, simple analysis, says this patent is not valid.  Yet, we have this claim.
>> 
>> CB
>> 
>> [1] -- http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/combination-invention-patentable-patents-29891.html
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 

-- 
I had no shoes and wept.  Then I met a man who had no feet.  So I said, "Hey man, got any shoes you're not using?" 