Subject: Re: [nemo] FW: [nemo-base-dt] IPRs on base solution

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 07:29:27 +0200

It is hard to know what other companies are doing. If they participate this WG, then in principle they should tell the IETF if they have IPRs, and if yes, what their licensing conditions are.

But lets get back to the Nokia IPR question. I don't find terms such as defensive or predatory very useful. Have you made a specific IPR claim about Nemo to the IETF? If yes, does it grant free use to public domain implementations and other vendor implementations or not? It is typically ok to require the user to do the same for their IPR if any. This may also help against at least some of the other IPR holders...

--Jari

________________ Reply Header ________________
Subject:	Re: [nemo] FW: [nemo-base-dt] IPRs on base solution
Author:	T.J. Kniveton <[email-masked]>
Date:		21st June 2003 9:04:51 pm

Thanks for your comments Jari; it sounds like everyone is interested in
making sure we are on top of the IPR issue, which is good. The purpose for
labeling IPR as "defensive" is the same as getting a free license -- it is
helpful for those implementing something to know that they will not be
targeted for using a technology by predatory licensing practices.

I would suppose this technology would be deployed in Linux & BSD by an
interested party implementing it as open source. I believe that Nokia
already has created and/or specified many, many technologies that have been
used in this way, and I don't see why the existing IPR policy or future
clarifications within NEMO would have to be any different. As for other
companies' IPR, I can not speak for them. Hopefully they would be equally
cooperative. Can you suggest a way to ensure that no other companies have
any IPR on a possible basic solution that we use?

TJ

On 6/19/03 11:01 PM, "Jari Arkko" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> TJ, Hesham,
> 
> I agree with Hesham here. IPRs *are* an issue, and
> I'm not sure labeling some of the IPR as "defensive"
> is very useful. Here's one practical problem: how does
> this technology get deployed in Linux & BSD? If the
> IPR licenses grant a free (not just "fair") use,
> then we are OK. If not, we have a problem. At the
> very least there should be a base solution which is
> free of IPRs, even if advanced optimizations etc.
> would be IPR-only stuff.
> 
> --Jari
>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:11:07 +0200

Jari Arkko wrote:
> It is hard to know what other companies are doing. If they 
> participate this WG, then in principle they should tell the IETF if 
> they have IPRs, and if yes, what their licensing conditions are.

Informally speaking, I've not been asked by my employer to write
technical disclosures on any form of basic support for NEMO.  Neither
have I asked my employer to pursue protection of such ideas.

Alex
GBU

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:11:07 +0200

Alex
GBU

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:12:16 +0200

Informally speaking, I've not been asked by my employer to write
technical disclosures on any form of basic support for NEMO.  Neither
have I asked my employer to pursue protection of said support.

Alex
GBU

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:12:16 +0200

Alex
GBU

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 11:01:58 -0700

On 6/21/03 10:29 PM, "Jari Arkko" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> It is hard to know what other companies are doing. If they participate this
> WG, then in principle they should tell the IETF if they have IPRs, and if yes,
> what their licensing conditions are.
> 
> But lets get back to the Nokia IPR question. I don't find terms such as
> defensive or predatory very useful. Have you made a specific IPR claim about
> Nemo to the IETF? If yes, does it grant free use to public domain
> implementations and other vendor implementations or not? It is typically ok to
> require the user to do the same for their IPR if any. This may also help
> against at least some of the other IPR holders...
> 
> --Jari
> 

Yes, when we submitted the original draft, I expressed that we have possible
IPR claims on it, spoke with an AD, and gave him all the information he
requested regarding the IPR. There is an IPR section in the draft, and Nokia
complies with all IETF IPR guidelines and requirements.

As for the related IPR to the NEMO draft, it was impossible to say what
applies before the draft was completed (i.e. today) and/or possible patents
issued. As I said in the prior e-mails, I have spoken with our attorneys and
they intend to make appropriate arrangements as will be requested by the
IETF.

You said you don't like the terms "defensive" or "predatory", and they are
only helpful insofar as there is some amount of uncertainty and unknown
regarding many IPR questions and how companies could use their IPR in the
future to make claims or agreements. But I agree with you that it is better
to talk about specific terms and definite claims regarding the technology
we're looking at. Nevertheless, there is no specific licensing statement
regarding this particular draft, yet, so it's not possible to share it with
you, yet. I have given all the information I personally have at the moment.

TJ

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 11:01:58 -0700

TJ