Subject: [Capwap] Cisco IPR Statement

From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 13:28:48 -0700

This e-mail is in response to the requests made to Cisco regarding IPR
in CAPWAP. Cisco has always been a strong supporter of the IETF and open
standards process, and I would like to re-iterate that our goal is not
to limit, restrict, or slow down WG progress. I believe that the
language of the IPR statement, which is that Cisco is donating its
technology to the IETF (with only defensive restrictions), clearly
demonstrates that Cisco is not interested in IPR battles.

While some have expressed concern about the LWAPP IPR statement
language, it is important to note that Cisco's IPR is not recent news.
Cisco (then Airespace) made the IETF aware of its patent application on
July 23rd, 2003. Cisco has followed all of the process and procedures of
the IETF as it relates to disclosure of IPR, as defined in section 6.4
of RFC 3979. At this point, it is not fair to ask Cisco to disclose the
contents of the patent application because until the Patent Office
issues the said application, there are no claims worth discussing - and
therefore anything I could say on this list would be pure speculation on
my part. 

The Cisco LWAPP IPR statement says anyone can use Cisco's IPR without
any kind of explicit license as long as the implementor doesn't assert
its own IPR against Cisco. This implies no paperwork, no money, nothing
has to be transfered between Cisco and the implementor. But, if the
implementor prefers an explicit license without the suspension provision
in our IPR statement, such licenses are available from Cisco on RAND
terms.

Cisco believe this kind of license is better than the traditional RAND
IPR statement often used in other cases in standard organizations as
what is reasonable terms is not known at the time of (according to the
IETF process) last call of a document, and it is not clear the license
terms, if known, will be exactly the same for all time.

Because of this, Cisco believes anyone having IPR on a technology they
bring to the IETF should let anyone implement the technology without any
need for explicit license, payments and other kind of uncertainties.
But, as stated earlier, if someone doesn't agree with this, and wants an
alternative arrangement you are welcome to contact Cisco proactively for
a RAND license (and then you can be free to assert your IPR). It is up
to the implementor to choose.

So I once more ask that the WG consider the presence of IPR as one of
many criteria in its decision process. I point you to the vast number of
IPR statements that exists against other IETF technologies, some Cisco
and some not, and regardless of the fact that IPR exists against most
technologies, there are many companies successful in the networking
space today. Further, Cisco has a clear track record, in many areas, of
not asserting its patents against IETF technologies, and of not limiting
or restricting the progress of the Internet.

To conclude, I believe that shutting down the working group would not be
in the best interest of the Internet community, and I hope the rest of
the WG members share this sentiment. 

Pat Calhoun
CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit
Cisco Systems
_______________________________________________
Capwap mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 05:20:12 -0700

Pat, 

  If Cisco believes that the terms of its LWAPP IPR statement are better
than traditional RAND IPR statements then why is Cisco offering RAND
terms for CTP, WiCOP, and SLAPP? 

  You said, "Cisco believes anyone having IPR on a technology they bring
to the IETF should let anyone implement the technology without any need
for exlicit license, payments and other kind of uncertainties." How can
you make such a statement without punctuating it with emoticons or the
popular acronyms for laughing out loud?

  "Cisco believes..." and "Cisco believes..." yet Cisco is acting in
ways contrary to what you're saying it believes in. Actions speak louder
than words.

  You state that "Cisco's IPR is not recent news". Really? A mere 3 weeks
ago Cisco claimed that it had IPR over CTP, WiCOP and SLAPP. Furthermore
you say it wouldn't be "fair" to ask Cisco to disclose what, exactly, is
being claimed because "there are no claims worth discussing" until the PTO
rules on pending application. On the contrary, the claims worth discussing
are _exactly_ what is being claimed in the pending application.

  Since the evaluation team is recommending changes to LWAPP that come
from protocols which have RAND terms on them I think it is imperative that
you disclose what is in those pending applications so the working group
can decide how and whether to move forward.

  Once again I would like to point out that while the LWAPP IPR statement
is certainly better than RAND terms it still has an unlimited field of use
that applies to when the grant of rights terminate. That is A Bad Thing
and, in my opinion, has to change.

  Dan.

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 13:28:48 PDT you wrote

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 18:51:34 -0700

Pat,

  I have been asked to clarify my previous response to your email.
Please indulge me here....

  You said:

	Cisco believe [the LWAPP IPR statement's license] is better than
	the traditional RAND IPR statement often used in other cases in
	standard organizations as what is reasonable terms is not known
	at the time of (according to the IETF process) last call of a
	document, and it is not clear the license terms, if known, will
	be exactly the same for all time. 

Yet Cisco is granting RAND terms on the IPR is claims to have that
is necessary to implement CTP, WiCOP, and SLAPP, not the kind of terms
it believes are better.

  You also said:

	Cisco believes anyone having IPR on a technology they bring to
	the IETF should let anyone implement the technology without any
	need for explicit license, payments and other kind of uncertainties.

Yet Cisco is demanding an explicit license, payments and other kinds
of uncertainties for the right to use the IPR it claims to have that
is necessary to implement CTP, WiCOP, and SLAPP.

  Can you please explain why the actions Cisco is taking with respect to
its IPR on CTP, WiCOP and SLAPP does not match its stated beliefs on IPR
in the IETF?

  Can you also explain why the terms for Cisco's IPR on LWAPP are more
favorable than the terms for Cisco's IPR on CTP, WiCOP and SLAPP?

  It would also be extremely helpful to the working group to know exactly
what is being claimed because the changes recommended to LWAPP are in the
protocols on which Cisco has given RAND terms. 

  If the working group knows what is being claimed then we can ensure that
any changes made to LWAPP will not include the technology being claimed.
If you are unable to tell the working group then there is a possibility 
that the resulting CAPWAP protocol will have RAND terms on it because it 
may include the technology from SLAPP that was covered by your IPR statement
of 7 September 2005.

  Dan.