Subject: RE: [Capwap] Cisco IPR Statement

From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:05:03 -0700

> 	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.

Cisco feels that making its own contribution royalty free is generous.
We do not have a policy to do the same for contributions brought in by
others.

> 
>   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?

Please see above.

> 
>   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?

Please see above.

>   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.

Not only is this not part of the IETF process, but to my knowledge this 
has this never occurred in another IETF Working Group. 

> 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.

I do not know about any Cisco IPR against the features being requested
by the evaluation team, as documented in draft-ietf-capwap-eval-00.txt.
That said, as with any protocol being designed, we cannot guarantee that
any future feature added will not infringe on Cisco (or someone else's)
patents - it's just part of the game :(

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

---

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 12:49:36 +0200

Inline (as an individual participant)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)
> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 01:05
> To: Dan Harkins
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Capwap] Cisco IPR Statement 
> 
> 

Pat, can I try to translate in my own words, so that I can veryify if
I understand your statements correctly:

1.You say that there are some techniques/mechanisms/algorithms that
  Cisco has IPR on and that those do probably cover the current
  candidate protocols on the table in the CAPWAP WG. So they cover
  the technology/protocol that this WG wants to standardize.
2.You say that the LWAPP protocol (one of the candidates, submitted
  by Cisco) does include some of the techniques/mechanisms/algorithms
  that Cisco has IPR on.
3.You say that the 3 other (CTP, WiCOP, SLAPP) protocols (all 3 are
  candidates, but submitted by others (non-Cisco)) also include
  some of the techniques/mechanisms/algorithms that Cisco has IPR on.
4.You say (below) that: 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.

So now I start to wonder:
a.Is Cisco (or better individuals who work at Cisco) bringing technology
  (i.e. techniques/mechanisms/algorithms) to the CAPWAP WG in order for
  the WG to develop a standardized CAPWAP protocol? or,
b.Is Cisco (or better individuals who work at Cisco) bringing an 
  implementation of some specific technology (i.e. LWAPP) that contains
  those specific techniques/mechanisms/algorithms (on which Cisco has IPR)
  to the CAPWAP WG?
c.It sounds like you are stating the answer is b. and that only if the
  CAPWAP WG selects the LWAPP candidate, only then will Cisco live up
  to its believes as listed in point 4. above.
d.Does that imply that if the WG wants the "generous IPR conditions" of
  point 4. above, that they basically can only choose LWAPP, possibly with
  some additions?

Pls do not read any of this as a complaint or value judgement.
I ask those questions in order to make sure I understand what exactly
is being stated/posted, and it seems I can best do that by translating 
what I think I am reading into my own words. If I got it wrong, pls
explain where I make an error in my thinking/reading.

more below
> > 	need for explicit license, payments and other kind of uncertainties.
> > 

That sounds great. That sort of detail is very helpful for the WG in
deciding which things it wants to add (or skip) in the final CAPWAP
protocol.

Would be good if you could also list details as to which pieces of
each of the CAPWAP protocol candidates you do think are covered by
IPR. So that does not mean detailing the IPR itself, but detailing
which pieces of the documents on the table are covered/impacted.

> patents - it's just part of the game :(

Yep... such is life.

Bert (again, I spoke as an individual participant)

---

From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 06:11:27 -0700

> Pat, can I try to translate in my own words, so that I can 
> veryify if I understand your statements correctly:
> 

Correct on all points.

> b.Is 
> Cisco (or better individuals who work at Cisco) bringing an

Actually, the answer is (a) *and* (b). However, to answer your
additional question, Airespace had made an IPR statement that is much
more generous than Cisco typically provides, and is one that Cisco will
fully support on its own implementation (b). Cisco feels the Airespace
statement should help technology adoption through free licensing, but
for those that would prefer other RAND related terms, this is also
possible.

As we all know, IPR is just one of many criteria to use in a protocol
selection process. The fact that the evaluation team has recommended
LWAPP means that the protocol is viable. Further, I had previously
stated that the recommended changes by the evaluation team did not
infringe on any additional Cisco technology that I am aware of.

> Would be good if you could also list details as to which 
> pieces of each of the CAPWAP protocol candidates you do think 
> are covered by IPR. So that does not mean detailing the IPR 
> itself, but detailing which pieces of the documents on the 
> table are covered/impacted.

Bert, I understand the request, and this is one of those tricky
situations where acting as an invidivual contributor doesn't work very
well, because these types of issues are corporate in nature. My legal
counsel has informed me that Cisco has followed all of the IETF's
policies, but if the IETF changes its policy, we would be happy to
accomodate. The sentiment being that if the policy were to change, then
all companies would have to compete on an equal footing - making this a
fairer process.

Pat Calhoun