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

From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 07:07:25 -0700

Dan has expressed a concern that acceptance of the LWAPP proposal means
companies could not innovate without being sued by Cisco. However, I
would like to remind the WG that Cisco has been a strong contributor to
the IETF process for many years, and the hypothetical scenarios provided
by Dan are just that - hypothetical, and are not representative of past
or present  behavior. Cisco believes strongly in standards, and wants to
help this process -  not hinder it.

Pat Calhoun
CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit
Cisco Systems
_______________________________________________
Capwap mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 08:16:19 -0700

Actually no, that's not the concern I expressed.

  My concern is that _any_ intellectual property that a company puts in
its product which also happens to implement LWAPP will become fair game
for Cisco. If a company asserts its rights against Cisco for using its
intellectual property without a license then that company would lose
its right to implement an IETF standard without a license. 

  No one said that Cisco isn't a strong contributor to the IETF process.
No one said that Cisco doesn't believe in standards. Been there, done
that, got the RFC.

  You previously said that the royalty free license extends to companies
that do not assert their own rights against Cisco "whether or not their
assertions relate to LWAPP itself". If you now are saying that Cisco would
never do something as underhanded as to take other companies' IPR and then
wave the LWAPP club when that company complains then why don't you change
the IPR notice so that it applies only to assertions against LWAPP?

  If you won't change the IPR notice then it is perfectly reasonable to
expect Cisco to do exactly what I am hypothetically suggesting. What other
motivation could there be for keeping that language? Hmmmmm?

  Dan.

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 07:07:25 PDT you wrote