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

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:05:15 -0700

Hi folks,

The subject of IPR has come up on the design team mailing list and we had a
discussion about it. In the interests of full disclosure to the whole NEMO
group, I would like to also present these messages here on the main list so
everybody can know what's going on. I have checked with the DT mailing list
members and no one has objected to this, so I will forward the messages here
for anyone who's interested.

thanks,
TJ

------ Forwarded Message
From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:01:21 -0700
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [nemo-base-dt] IPRs on base solution

Hi all,

This subject came up last week and I would like to say a little more on it
so
we can get as full a picture as possible. As was already mentioned, Cisco
asserted they may have IPR which may affect draft-kniveton-mobrtr-02. I
talked
with their patent attorney via e-mail, and I was not able to get a full
picture
of exactly what their IPR claims would cover. Apparently they have not yet
been
issued patents on this, but it appears to spring out of their earlier Mobile
IPv4-based mobile router work a couple of years ago.

In addition, I need to remind people that we at Nokia have IPR that would
apply
to a basic mobile router solution, as was disclosed when the draft was
submitted.

As far as I personally know, both Nokia and Cisco have IETF policies that
allow
free licensing as long as reciprocity is granted, and are mainly defensive
postures. I have contacted our own patent attorneys to get a better
statement
regarding this Nokia IPR that applies to mobile routers.

I know there are a lot of concerns about IPR, and it is hard to be totally
sure
what the situation is. I don't know about others who may have any IPR claims
on
mobile routers, but I just want to share my knowledge as soon as possible,
which the is all the info I have right now. When I hear back from our
lawyers
I'll give an update.

-TJ

------ End of Forwarded Message

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:05:15 -0700

Hi folks,

thanks,
TJ

------ Forwarded Message

Hi all,

-TJ

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:40:24 +0200 (CEST)

> for anyone who's interested.

TJ,

Two questions appear:
 - Any indication about what licensing Nokia and Cisco might be willing to
   offer should their claimed IPR be relevant when implementing a standard
   in this area?
 - Is there any information what the claimed IPR might actually cover?
   This is useful for the WG if there is a desire to proceed even
   though there is IPR, something which the WG is free to choose,
   or try to work around the IPR.

If it's useful for the WG I can give some information on how IPR is
usually handled in IETF WGs and answer questions during the meeting
in Vienna.

  Erik

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:40:24 +0200 (CEST)

TJ,

Two questions appear:

  Erik