Subject: [rohc] Current ROHC IPR situation

From: Dmitri Varsanofiev <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:40:32 -0700

Dear ROHC list subscribers,

What is the current situation with the IPR for the ROHC implementations? I
have searched the ROHC Web site and both "old" and "new" mailing archives,
but did not find a clear answer.

According to the ROHC web site and mailing lists, early in the development
of the standard few players, including Ericsson, have identified that they
might have patents and patent applications related to ROHC, and signed
letters agreeing to license their IP on RAND terms.

What I have not been able to find is the current IPR situation, in
particular:

1) Did the IP owners move from RAND to RANDZ?

2) If fees are required, is there a centralized pool of IP? Is there an
authoritative list of IP involved?

3) Do any of the existing ROHC vendors provide indemnification against the
IP claims? or

4) Are the users of ROHC implementations expected to obtain their own
[cross-]licensing?

Any help will be greatly appreciated, including pojnters to Web sites,
publications, companies, and people.

Thank you in advance!
-- 
Dmitri "Dima" Varsanofiev

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:22:53 +0200

please do *not* discuss specific patents/patent claims on the mailing  
list, as such a discussion might require a number of contributors to  
unsubscribe and stop contributing.  (It might also cause you or your  
employer to become liable for damages in interesting ways.)

If you need information about patent ("IPR") claims, you know where to  
go:
http://www.ietf.org/ipr/
This is also the place to go if you know about patent claims and need  
to declare them in order to fulfill your duties as cited in the "note  
well" you received when you subscribed to this list.

The IETF cannot define "an authoritative list of IP" (patent claims)  
as that is fundamentally impossible.
There is nothing that we can contribute on a technical level -- e.g.,  
we all know a lot about prior art in this space, but this is barely  
relevant on a legal level.

If you want to discuss this, meet in a hallway and make sure no  
microphones are nearby.

Gruesse, Carsten

On Apr 30, 2009, at 09:40, Dmitri Varsanofiev wrote:

> What is the current situation with the IPR for the ROHC  
> implementations? I have searched the ROHC Web site and both "old"  
> and "new" mailing archives, but did not find a clear answer.