Subject: RE: IPR issues in RFC 3552, etc.

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 09:55:34 -0400

> >> [...] I believe [the IPS SRP case study in the Guidelines
> >> draft] should be expanded to present alternate viewpoints.
> >> 
> >> It might be possible to learn something from that.
> >> But I don't know for sure.

[... snip ...]

> >If you want to see specific text changed in the current version before
> >it goes to (informational) RFC, please provide details.  
> 
> In case I wasn't clear, I think it would be a mistake to publish this as
> an informational RFC due to the incomplete description of that case.
> 
> I doubt that most of the participants in that case read this mailing list,
> and I happened upon it only by circumstance.  It might require some
> outreach to get the necessary feedback to provide a full story.

Ok, hint taken ... I do read this mailing list.

To the extent that the IPS case study tars both patent holders with the same
brush, some additional clarification of what happened is probably in order.
It's quite clear that the behavior of one of the patent holders (Lucent) was
far worse than the other (Phoenix, with whom David Jablon is associated).
See http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/02mar/slides/ips-9/index.html .  This
is probably worth clarifying to avoid incorrect implications about what
happened.

On the other hand, I believe the RFC 3552 statement on the lack of clarity
of the Intellectual Property status (of the secure password class of
protocols)
to be correct.  One of the things to be learned from the IPS SRP experience
is that submission of IPR notices (which both patent holders did) does not
lead directly to clarity of Intellectual Property status.  A common source
of lack of clarity is cross claims where there are multiple patents in an
area, and while it's clear that each patent covers its own technology, it's
unclear whether and to what extent each patent covers other technologies.
That was the situation in the IPS SRP case, and it has occurred elsewhere.
It would be useful to elaborate on these two points (IPR notices don't
resolve
all concerns, cross claims do occur and can be very difficult to deal with)
in the guidelines draft.

Thanks,
--David (IPS WG co-chair)
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

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

---

From: David Jablon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 11:01:33 -0400

David,

The primary issue here is whether people (e.g. the IAB) are acting responsibly
in making sweeping statements in an IETF document (or otherwise) about the
IPR of any party for methods that are not the subject of the document in question,
and specifically whether such practice is condoned by IETF IPR policy.

At 09:55 AM 8/19/2003 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>to be correct.

Whether *you* believe that statement to be "correct" or not is not really
the issue. The issue is what beliefs that statement (and yours) engenders
in others.  To see my point, let's explore "your belief" a bit further ...

In what sense do you believe the statement to be "correct"?  For example,
do you really believe the patent status of EKE is unclear?  If so, then show us
a cross claim in an earlier patent that covers it.  Or perhaps you think that all
of Lucent's claims are invalid, and that EKE is really free for use by everyone?
Or maybe you're saying that Steve and Michael just stole someone else's work?
Please, tell us all exactly what you are talking about.

And then, while you're at it, do the same for all other methods in the field,
and also tell us exactly why it's important to say all this in RFC 3552.
If you can't do that, then please stop spreading FUD by supporting that 
irresponsible statement.

The RFC names three specific methods, and alludes to all others in the field.
As far as I know, in your capacity as co-chair of the IPS WG,
you made formal requests about the status of just one of these methods.
And, incidently, as part of what you saw as your responsibility as co-chair,
you actively discouraged WG investigation of others.

Regardless of how well the patent status of SRP was considered or resolved
by the IPS WG, these unfounded and gratuitous statements are "tarring"
many other methods.

-- David