Subject: RE: [Capwap] RE: IPR issues

From: "Nelson, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 08:47:59 -0400

Darren Loher writes...

> In order to be successful, whatever this working group
> creates and emerges as the CAPWAP protocol must be free 
> of licensing requirements.

That may be something of a cat-and-mouse game.  As has been observed in this thread, the WG doesn't know what claims in the unpublished, pending patents are asserted against the CAPWAP submissions.  The fact that IPR notices have been asserted against all the submissions tends to indicate that some of the claims are quite broad.

As someone who has some experience in structuring the claims in patent applications, I will observe that it is general practice to include both narrow as well as broad claims in your application.  Generally speaking, the broader the claims, the more valuable the patent.  Some claims may eventually be disallowed by the Patent and Trademark Office, of course.

_______________________________________________
Capwap mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap