Subject: [trill] Fwd: IPR Disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-tissa-trill-oam-fm-01

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 22:12:24 -0400

This may be of interest.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: IETF Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:56 PM
Subject: IPR Disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to
draft-tissa-trill-oam-fm-01
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
[email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]

Dear Samer Salam, Tissa Senevirathne, Deepak Kumar, Donald E. Eastlake
3rd, Sam Aldrin:

 An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "TRILL Fault
Management" (draft-tissa-trill-oam-fm) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on
2013-05-15 and has been posted on the "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights
Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2082/). The title of the IPR
disclosure is "Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-tissa-trill-oam-
fm-01."");

The IETF Secretariat

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 16:16:29 +0000

This is a pretty classic example of a late IPR disclosure.   The patent was filed in 2010, issued in January of 2012, the -00 version of the draft was published in September of 2012, and the disclosure was filed in May of 2013.   If this disclosure was the result of the authors realizing, as a result of recent IPR sanctions, that they had a problem, I would like to express my appreciation for the fact that they have done something about it.   At the same time, RFC 6701 clearly applies; I will leave it to the working group chairs to figure out what remedy to undertake.

For those who are unsure, the time to file the IPR disclosure would have been no later than September of 2012—the time of the publication of the first draft.   If the work was discussed on the mailing list prior to publication of the -00 draft, then even September was too late—it should have been disclosed as soon as any of the Cisco folks who were aware of the patent began participating in the discussion.   If the discussion began prior to issuance of the patent, an initial IPR would still have been required as a condition for participation in the discussion: you have IPR to disclose as soon as a patent is filed, although there is no need to disclose it until you realize that you are participating in a discussion that pertains to the technique(s) covered by the patent.

Waiting is never appropriate, because it wastes IETF participants' time, and potentially results in implementation work being done that, should the IPR affect the adoption of the covered work, would have to be discarded.

IOW, failing to disclose IPR is not a victimless crime, and it is your colleagues in the IETF who suffer when you neglect to do so.

---

From: "Samer Salam (ssalam)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 20:31:32 +0000

Hi Ted,

Would like to clarify two points regarding the IPR disclosure:

-The disclosure pertaining to patent application 20120014261 applies to
revision 01 of the draft (published February 2013). Version 00
contribution does not include any procedures covered by the IPR.

- The disclosure for patent application 20110194403 is completely
voluntary, and there is nothing in the current draft that requires this
IPR. We just disclosed it because it is related to the general field.

To the best of our ability, we tried to make sure that the disclosure was
timely.

Regards,
Samer

On 13-05-21 9:16 AM, "Ted Lemon" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>This is a pretty classic example of a late IPR disclosure.   The patent
>was filed in 2010, issued in January of 2012, the -00 version of the
>draft was published in September of 2012, and the disclosure was filed in
>May of 2013.   If this disclosure was the result of the authors
>realizing, as a result of recent IPR sanctions, that they had a problem,
>I would like to express my appreciation for the fact that they have done
>something about it.   At the same time, RFC 6701 clearly applies; I will
>leave it to the working group chairs to figure out what remedy to
>undertake.
>
>For those who are unsure, the time to file the IPR disclosure would have
>been no later than September of 2012‹the time of the publication of the
>first draft.   If the work was discussed on the mailing list prior to
>publication of the -00 draft, then even September was too late‹it should
>have been disclosed as soon as any of the Cisco folks who were aware of
>the patent began participating in the discussion.   If the discussion
>began prior to issuance of the patent, an initial IPR would still have
>been required as a condition for participation in the discussion: you
>have IPR to disclose as soon as a patent is filed, although there is no
>need to disclose it until you realize that you are participating in a
>discussion that pertains to the technique(s) covered by the patent.
>
>Waiting is never appropriate, because it wastes IETF participants' time,
>and potentially results in implementation work being done that, should
>the IPR affect the adoption of the covered work, would have to be
>discarded.
>
>IOW, failing to disclose IPR is not a victimless crime, and it is your
>colleagues in the IETF who suffer when you neglect to do so.
>
>_______________________________________________
>trill mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill