Subject: [dhcwg] Regarding Draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-X.txt

From: "Mats Jonsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:52:33 +0100

PacketFront Sweden AB would like to update its IPR notification from April
17, 2003.

The document draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-X.txt describes technology or
solutions for which PacketFront has related patents or patent applications
pending. 

If a document based on this draft becomes an IETF standard PacketFront is
prepared to license, on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, any related
PacketFront patents to the extent required to comply with the standard.

PacketFront Sweden AB

Mats E. Jonsson

Deputy CEO

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:42:56 -0600

On Jan 29, 2004, at 9:52 AM, Mats Jonsson wrote:
> The document draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-X.txt describes technology 
> or solutions for which PacketFront has related patents or patent 
> applications pending.
>
> If a document based on this draft becomes an IETF standard PacketFront 
> is prepared to license, on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, 
> any related PacketFront patents to the extent required to comply with 
> the standard.

That's somewhat encouraging, but can you say what terms you would 
offer?   I'm personally not at all happy with the idea that any part of 
the DHCP protocol suite might be subject to a license fee.

The only standard in the DHCwg that contains any patented IP (that I 
know of) is the relay agent information option draft, and to the best 
of my recollection Motorola stated that they would not demand any 
compensation from software or hardware manufacturers who implement 
RFC3046, other than in cases where there might be cross-licensing 
issues.

I think that PacketFront owes the DHCwg an explanation for why they 
have added these trivial patents on top of a protocol that is otherwise 
unencumbered - how you justify this kind of action toward a group that 
has produced something of great value to you and offered it to you with 
no strings attached.   If these are purely defensive patents, that's a 
good explanation, but if that's the case, your licensing terms should 
be stated in way that's compatible with that interpretation.

Unfortunately, "reasonable" is far too vague to satisfy this.   I 
personally am against advancing this draft until we have some assurance 
that there will be no license fees for this patent except in cases 
where there is a need for cross-licensing.   I have no objection to you 
protecting your interests, but I do object to the DHCwg advancing a 
draft which encumbers the DHCP protocol suite in this way, and I don't 
think this draft adds sufficient value to justify advancing the draft 
under the present circumstances.

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 08:13:08 -0500

> RFC3046, other than in cases where there might be cross-licensing 

To be clear, Motorola's statement is here:

http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/MOTOROLA-DHCP-AGENT-OPTIONS

Also, to be fair, there have been other assertions of IPR on DHC work
items, though they are not RFCs yet.

See Section 10 of  draft-ietf-dhc-agentopt-radius-03.txt, for which a
WG Last Call has completed.

And see also Section 10 of draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-00.txt (though
expired), which I presume relates to
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/CISCO-raj-dhc-subnet-alloc.txt.

Thomas

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:51:59 -0500

Speaking with my Cisco hat on, rather than my WG chair hat...

The two examples from Cisco that Thomas has chosen to point out are
referenced in two IPR statements at:

http://ietf.org/ietf/IPR/CISCO-8021X.txt

http://ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-ietf-dhc-server-override.txt

These IPR statements are essentially identical to IPR statements from other
vendors regarding DHCP and many other protocols (see
http://ietf.org/ipr.html).  Cisco has never asked for royalties in the past.
We have made IPR claims related to these IPR statements to ensure that the
relevant IP stays publicly available.  The IETF has no precedent for
requiring, asking for or publishing any other form of royalty statement
("RAND-Z"), so I don't see any reason to hold these particular examples up
as problematic.

- Ralph, who will now go back to being WG chair

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:59:03 -0600

On Jan 30, 2004, at 3:51 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:

> The IETF has no precedent for

The Motorola agent-options statement specifically disclaims royalties 
other than in cases of cross-licensing.

---

From: John Schnizlein <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:27:18 -0500

I am not a lawyer, but the plain-English meaning of
"This grant immediately cancels to any party asserting 
rights against Motorola for a method or methods described in
the draft." is not limited to cross-licensing. While the
Cisco lawyer did not use exactly the same phrasing, he has
explained to me that this is essentially the same as our
statement.

Robert Barr <[email-masked]>, is the Cisco contact point 
for these IPR issues.

To make it clear that the above quote is not out of context, 
I have included the entire statement below.
________________________________

The following was received September 25, 1999
From: [email-masked]

To: Mr. Steve Coya, Internet Engineering Task Force
    [email-masked]

Re: Motorola Patent Application for DHCP Relay Agent Options

This is to inform the IETF that in the event that Motorola is 
granted a patent or patents essential to the implementation of
the internet draft  <draft-ietf-dhcp-agent-options-xx.txt>,
Motorola agrees to grant a royalty-free license to all parties
implementing the draft, subject to reciprocity of the licensed 
party.  This grant immediately cancels to any party asserting 
rights against Motorola for a method or methods described in
the draft.

Inquiries are directed to Mr. Kirk Dailey, [email-masked].

At 04:59 PM 1/30/2004, Ted Lemon wrote:

>The Motorola agent-options statement specifically disclaims royalties other than in cases of cross-licensing.