Subject: RE: [Capwap] RE: IPR issues

From: "Pat Calhoun [[email-masked]]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 18:47:57 -0700

That is correct, James. LWAPP is royalty free, while the others (SLAPP,
CTP, WiCOP) are under RAND terms.

Folks, while I understand the concerns raised on the list, I would like
to remind everyone that many technologies developed by IETF (any any SDO
for that matter) have IPR claims around them. Nonetheless, if these
technologies address a market need, they end up being very successful.

Further, there is no guarantee that additional IPR claims won't show up
at a later date. There are many wireless companies that have no
representation in this working group, and given the protocol
independence objective of CAPWAP, I wouldn't be surprised if additional
IPR is identified at a later date.

But just because IPR exists does not make a technology less successful.
In fact, I would point you to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_list.cgi for a snapshot of the
current IPR claims for all of the IETF work in progress. Many IETF
protocols are widely deployed that have IPR claims against them, and
these are very successful. In fact, if one were to design a WLAN system,
chances are one would run into other IPR claims that exist out of IEEE,
such as Trapeze's claims on 802.11e, 802.11f, 802.11k and 802.11i (the
last one being a clear example that patents do not stop a protocol's
usefulness), and the CAPWAP protocol is just part of the overall WLAN
system.

As we evaluate specific protocols, they each have their pros and cons.
In the end, a protocol must be chosen based on its completeness, its
ability to solve the problem, etc. IPR is just one of many criterion
that we must deal with during the protocol engineering process.  Trying
to avoid known patents today does not guarantee a patent free protocol
by any means, nor does enhancing a lesser protocol. 

So I would urge the WG to look at IPR as one of many issues that must be
dealt with in our engineering task ahead of us...

Pat Calhoun
CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit
Cisco Systems

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of James Kempf
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 11:44 AM
> To: Ted Lemon
> Cc: Darren Loher; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Capwap] RE: IPR issues
> 
> Let's be careful to distinguish which IPR notice we're 
> talking about. As I read the two disclosures (and I'm not a 
> lawyer so take this for what it's worth), the license 
> associated with LWAPP would be royalty free if it is adopted 
> as a standard, the claimed terms for the others are RAND, 
> which would not be royality free.
> 
> Have I got that right?
> 
>             jak
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ted Lemon" <[email-masked]>
> To: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Darren Loher" <[email-masked]>; 
> <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 11:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [Capwap] RE: IPR issues
> 
> 
> On Sep 15, 2005, at 10:30 AM, James Kempf wrote:
> > I don't have any problem with a license if it is royalty 
> free, but  it 
> > will certainly cause problems for the OpenSource community.
> 
> The license in this case isn't royalty free.   It's "reasonable,"
> which can mean anything, although in my experience to date 
> Cisco has in fact been reasonable in the sense of the word 
> that I normally
> use.   The relevant document here is RFC3979, which doesn't
> explicitly say what to do, but has a good discussion of the 
> issues involved.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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, 20 Sep 2005 11:21:46 -0700

Pat,

  Your statement that "LWAPP is royalty free" has a huge condition
applied to it. It is only "royalty free" for a company if it does not
assert its own IPR against Cisco, on anything and not just its own
claims on LWAPP. 

  As I stated earlier, that means that Cisco is free to steal one piece
of intellectual property from each company that implements LWAPP. 

  Royalty free would be something like this:

	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/CAST-128-entrust

LWAPP is _NOT ROYALTY FREE_. 

  Dan.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 18:47:57 PDT you wrote

---

From: Partha Narasimhan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:34:18 -0700 (PDT)

> IPR is identified at a later date.

While this is a risk that we all have to live with, the situation here is 
worse because the recent IPR claims have come from an active participant 
in the WG. Including the fact that the presence of such claims has been 
revealed so late in the game without any details of these claims.

In line with other opinions expressed on the mailing list, it is important 
that those with specific claims come forward with the details of such 
claims so that the WG may be able to determine the appropriate course of 
action to move forward. IMHO, these recent IPR claims have created a dark 
cloud over the activities of this WG and the removal of which is required 
for further progress.

Thanks
partha