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

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:05:52 -0700

------ Forwarded Message
From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:24:38 -0700
To: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [nemo-base-dt] IPRs on base solution

Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> 
> Hello TJ, thank you for the update.
> 
> > I know there are a lot of concerns about IPR, and it is hard to be
> > totally sure what the situation is.
> 
> Exactly, that fits my view too; it is hard for me to find out what the
> best practice at IETF is.
> 
> Please allow me to take one possible aspect of the situation.  I'm not
> claiming that this is covering entirely the IPR issues, it is just one
> possibility.  I've heard some people at IETF saying that WG's and the
> IESG are trying to stay away from anything that is "encumbered". (more
> specifically, a Mobile IP WG co-chair wrote in private; at last manet WG
> meeting an IESG member said that people in IESG are trying to
> avoid "encumbered" drafts; and a Mobile IP WG member who wrote on the
> list saying he doesn't "want to become a lawyer" when I suggested him
> that defensive IPR's are probably not very bad).

Yes, we can see that this is an unchartered area and everyone reacts in a
slightly different way! Of course being a researcher, I recognize that
unencumbered technology may be the most flexible. I also agree with you that
defensive IPRs are not that bad, but what I have come to understand after
talking to the lawyers is that this would be fine in a perfect world with no
malicious companies. But unfortunately, defensive stances cause the
defense-only company to pay royalties to a non-defensive company (especially
if
it doesn't compete in the same market segment), and not vice-versa. Nokia
already has a statement registered on the IETF web site and is committed to
"play fair."

So anyhow, back to this specific case.. I have gotten a response from our
lawyers and they are concerned to make sure that we conform to the IETF
process
and play by the rules. At this early stage, we can give a statement
identifying
the application, the work it affects and some licensing statement. We can
give
more detailed statements when the std is frozen or the patent is granted.
And I
will personally make sure that future necessary clarifications will be
addressed by the lawyers.

Thanks, TJ

-- 
        T.J. Kniveton
   Communication Systems Lab
     Nokia Research Center

------ End of Forwarded Message

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:05:52 -0700

------ Forwarded Message

Thanks, TJ