Subject: RE: [Capwap] Exisiting Implementation(s) for Submitted CAPWAP Proposals

From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 07:30:15 -0700

The royalty free license would extend only to those who do not assert
against the systems that utilize LWAPP whether or not their assertions
relate to LWAPP itself. The prior IPR statement carries on through
Cisco.

Pat Calhoun
CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit
Cisco Systems

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dan Harkins
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 11:34 AM
> To: Darren Loher
> Cc: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Capwap] Exisiting Implementation(s) for 
> Submitted CAPWAP Proposals 
> 
>   I am not aware of any IPR related to SLAPP. I have a 
> question about LWAPP's disclosure though.
> 
>   Pat, it says, 
> 
> 	"The covenant shall not apply to (and Airspace shall be free
> 	 to assert the above identified claims against) any party that
> 	 asserts a patent it owns or controls against Airespace, either
> 	 directly or indirectly, based on implementation or operation of
> 	 a system utilizing the LWAPP protocol."
> 
> Does that mean the patent being asserted against Airespace 
> must be against some part of the LWAPP protocol or just for 
> something that's in a system that also happens to utilize LWAPP?
> 
>   Also, does your new employer who I imagine purchased 
> Airespace's IPR also agree with this statement?
> 
>   Dan.
> 
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:49:12 PDT you wrote
> > 
> > I've asked similar questions.  To my knowledge, the only 
> intellectual 
> > property disclosure that has been filed in the CAPWAP 
> working group is 
> > regarding LWAPP.  You can read it at:
> > 
> > 
> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/airespace-ipr-draft-calhoun-seamoby-lwapp
> > .txt
> > 
> > I have not seen any disclosure from the authors of CTP, 
> WiCoP or SLAPP.
> > 
> > -Darren
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> Capwap mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap
> 
_______________________________________________
Capwap mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 09:01:50 -0700

Pat,

  If LWAPP were to become a draft standard it sounds like Cisco would
be able to use other companies IPR on things (like accurate location
determination or rogue detection or ...) without license and if that
company tried to stop Cisco then Cisco would bring out the LWAPP club.
Then they either swap licenses, the company gets no benefit from
their IPR, or the unfortunate company pays to implement a standard.

  So it looks like if everybody has to implement LWAPP because it was
the draft standard then they'd have to give up some part of their patent
portfolio to Cisco if they try to assert any of it. I don't think that
sounds like a very good deal. 

  Perhaps you could explain _exactly_ what parts of LWAPP you think
are covered by your pending applications so that we make sure none of
that is in the final CAPWAP spec.

  Dan.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 07:30:15 PDT you wrote

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 09:28:40 -0700

Dan,

I think this is the same IPR release that IBM made for Photuris in RFC 1822, 
and it has been used by other companies since then. Is the case you've 
outlined below one that actually occured with IKE, or is it hypothetical?

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan Harkins" <[email-masked]>
To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Darren Loher" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Capwap] Exisiting Implementation(s) for Submitted CAPWAP 
Proposals

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:19:46 -0700

James,

  It's hypothetical. I don't know of any IPR claims on RFC2409. I also
suffer from memory loss :-) so my recollection may be wrong but I don't
remember IBM's patent as being a real sticking point on whether to go
with Photuris, IKE or SKIP.

  Also, RFC1822 says that the other company must assert a claim "against
IBM for IBM's implementation of and operation in compliance with
Photuris or any derivative, as defined above." So it's against the
operation of Photuris or against a way to remain compliant with Photuris.
It's not against any part of a system that also just so happens to
implement Photuris, or a Photuris derivative.

  For instance, let's say you have some wiz-bang patented way to 
compress TCP and you also implemented Photuris, they're both in the
stack your company developed and is used in some system you sell. Does
that mean that you will lose rights to use Photuris if you assert your
patent against IBM for stealing your TCP compression scheme? I don't
think so; that's not how I'm reading it. 

  But the LWAPP one is different. I you had some wiz-bang patented
way to do rogue detection and you also implemented LWAPP (because it's
part of the standard) then you would lose your rights to use LWAPP
if you asserted a claim against Cisco for stealing your rogue detection
scheme. Pat even said that it applies "whether or not the assertions
relate to LWAPP itself."

  RFC1822 also lists the patent so people could go see exactly what
part of Photuris falls under IBM's IPR. The LWAPP statement just
says that "at least one claim" in 3 pending applications is "believed"
to be "essential to implement LWAPP" as defined in an expired 
Internet Draft. 

  Pat's statement sounds really bad. The largest networking company
in the world would get royalty-free licenses to use other companies'
intellectual property just so those companies can implement an IETF
standard. And all the smaller companies don't necessarily get
royalty-free licenses for each other's intellectual property either,
just Cisco.

  Dan.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 09:28:40 PDT you wrote