Subject: [Geopriv] IPR disclosure on draft-ietf-geopriv-deref-protocol

From: "Richard L. Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 15:57:47 -0400

Dear GEOPRIV,

An IPR disclosure has been filed against a GEOPPRIV document, draft-ietf-geopriv-deref-protocol.  This document has been through working group last call, IETF last call, and IESG approval.  Its last DISCUSS was cleared 12 July 2012, but Robert is delaying final approval until this IPR question has been resolved.

Please send comment to the list by Friday, 20 July 2012, if you have concerns related to this IPR disclosure.  

Note that the patent disclosed in this disclosure was also disclosed with regard to other GEOPRIV documents that proceeded to publication:
RFC 3693: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/960/>
RFC 4079: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/959/>
RFC 4119: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/958/>

Thanks,
GEOPRIV Chairs

---

From: James Polk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 15:07:49 -0500

How can you have IPR on a requirements doc that doesn't create 
anything novel or unique? Literally, where's the invention within RFC 3693?

This is crazy!

James

At 02:57 PM 7/19/2012, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
>Dear GEOPRIV,
>
>An IPR disclosure has been filed against a GEOPPRIV document, 
>draft-ietf-geopriv-deref-protocol.  This document has been through 
>working group last call, IETF last call, and IESG approval.  Its 
>last DISCUSS was cleared 12 July 2012, but Robert is delaying final 
>approval until this IPR question has been resolved.
>
>Note that the patent disclosed in this disclosure was also disclosed 
>with regard to other GEOPRIV documents that proceeded to publication:
>_______________________________________________
>Geopriv mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: "Richard L. Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:09:58 -0400

<hat type="individual" />

Having read the patent, I do not think that it is required to implement draft-ietf-geopriv-deref-protocol.  As I understand it, the patent covers a location-based access control system, which could use deref, but which is not a requirement of deref.

So I would be OK with deref proceeding in spite of this IPR claim.

--Richard

---

From: "Richard L. Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:15:49 -0400

<hat type="chair" />

The due date for comments in the original email is incorrect.  

Please send comment to the list by Wednesday, 25 July 2012, if you have concerns related to this IPR disclosure.

Sorry for the confusion,
--Richard

---

From: Brian Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:28:05 -0400

I agree.  I have read the patent and do not believe there is a problem with respect to implementing deref.  I suppose it would be possible to use deref to build a system which violates the patent, but I believe that most uses won't, and therefore I think we should proceed.

IANAL

Brian

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:50:50 -0700

I see no reason not to proceed.  The usual caveats apply.

---

From: "Carl Reed" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:49:14 -0600

Silly indeed.

I would hazard a guess that the utility GIS space had applications for role 
based access to utility databases based on time and location. This is 
especially true for outside plant mapping. This work dates back to the 
1980's. The following paper:

http://www.lis.ic.unicamp.br/publications/docs/sasaokamedeiros.pdf - Access 
Control in Geographic Databases

has some very interesting references dating from the mid 1990's. I would 
also guess that IBM and Oracle deployed numerous role based access control 
applications - since they have been major players in the utility 
infrastructure space for decades. Obviously, all this early work predates 
GPS. But of course, folks have been collecting geographic data and 
determining the position of a piece of equipment using remote sensor 
technology way before GPS was civilian accessible. IBM followed a model 
called Role Based Access Control (RBAC).

Now, in terms of straight on possible prior art, check out:

Location-Based Authentication: Grounding Cyberspace for Better Security
http://www.cs.georgetown.edu/~denning/infosec/Grounding.txt

And of course if Glassy wants to fight with some "big boys"

http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/WO2006103387

and a 1996 patent:

http://www.google.com/patents/US6011973 - The present invention provides a 
method and apparatus for restricting operation of a cellular telephone to 
well delineated geographical areas.

which references really early patents on location, wireless networks, and 
authentication/access control.

Regards

Carl

-----Original Message----- 
From: James Polk
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 2:07 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] IPR disclosure on draft-ietf-geopriv-deref-protocol

This is crazy!

James

At 02:57 PM 7/19/2012, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
>draft-ietf-geopriv-deref-protocol.  This document has been through working 
>group last call, IETF last call, and IESG approval.  Its last DISCUSS was 
>cleared 12 July 2012, but Robert is delaying final approval until this IPR 
>question has been resolved.
>
>Note that the patent disclosed in this disclosure was also disclosed with 
>regard to other GEOPRIV documents that proceeded to publication:

---

From: tglassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 17:22:37 -0700

On 7/19/2012 1:50 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> I agree.  I have read the patent and do not believe there is a problem with respect to implementing deref.
Actually I disagree...
>> I suppose it would be possible to use deref to build a system which violates the patent, but I believe that most uses won't, and therefore I think we should proceed.

You need to understand that the use of any encrypted transport takes 
care of the signing component. Also notice there is no specification of 
the bit density of the signature. It was intended to allow a variable 
(selectable signing process including the use of zero-bit signatures per 
the Haber models also previously part of several Bell Labs patents.

So - while I agree that using localized references may not violate the 
patent the last three independent claims are the issue.  As I also said 
we will license the IP but not under IETF BCP rules.

If the location statement per Ninth Circuit rules is an IP address the 
issue is toast. The location code (the address) signed by the transport 
- poof... its done.

Todd Glassey
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5141 - Release Date: 07/19/12
>
>

-- 
//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.

---

From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:50:24 +0200

Could I just point out that discussion of the validity, or not, of the claims made in the declaration or in the claimed IPR itself are not something the working group should be discussing.

The WG merely needs to make a decision, based on the IPR declaration, and the references therefrom, as to whether it should proceed with the current technical solution, or to adopt an alternative technical solution (or no solution at all).

Saying "proceed" can encompass everything from "I don't believe the claims are valid" to "The claims are valid but I am prepared to pay the license fee to get this technical solution", but you don't need to tell the working group any of that, particularly if it leads to a discussion of whether your statement is correct or not.

Regards

Keith

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Richard L. Barnes
> Sent: 19 July 2012 20:58
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Geopriv] IPR disclosure on draft-ietf-geopriv-deref-protocol
> 
> Dear GEOPRIV,
> 
> An IPR disclosure has been filed against a GEOPPRIV document, draft-ietf-
> geopriv-deref-protocol.  This document has been through working group last
> call, IETF last call, and IESG approval.  Its last DISCUSS was cleared 12
> July 2012, but Robert is delaying final approval until this IPR question
> has been resolved.
>

---

From: Brian Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:22:22 -0400

Thanks for the reminder.

Based on the information available, I would say "proceed".

Brian

---

From: "Carl Reed" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 07:28:55 -0600

Ditto. Proceed

Carl

-----Original Message----- 
From: Brian Rosen
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 7:22 AM
To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] IPR disclosure on draft-ietf-geopriv-deref-protocol

Thanks for the reminder.

Brian

On Jul 20, 2012, at 5:50 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:

> Could I just point out that discussion of the validity, or not, of the 
> claims made in the declaration or in the claimed IPR itself are not 
> something the working group should be discussing.
>
> The WG merely needs to make a decision, based on the IPR declaration, and 
> the references therefrom, as to whether it should proceed with the current 
> technical solution, or to adopt an alternative technical solution (or no 
> solution at all).
>
> Saying "proceed" can encompass everything from "I don't believe the claims 
> are valid" to "The claims are valid but I am prepared to pay the license 
> fee to get this technical solution", but you don't need to tell the 
> working group any of that, particularly if it leads to a discussion of 
> whether your statement is correct or not.
>
> Regards
>
> Keith
>

---

From: tglassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 06:36:17 -0700

> Could I just point out that discussion of the validity, or not, of the claims made in the declaration or in the claimed IPR itself are not something the working group should be discussing.
Agreed
> The WG merely needs to make a decision, based on the IPR declaration, and the references therefrom, as to whether it should proceed with the current technical solution, or to adopt an alternative t…
No, and this is the failing - you as an operative here  seem to think 
you make decisions here that you are immune from the consequences of... 
and  that is not what is happening here - The WG (GeoPRIV) has no legal 
authority itself to make any decisions. ONLY ITS SPONSORS OF ITS MEMBER 
DO meaning OpenGeospatial.ORG must formally weigh in as to whether  it 
assumes formal liability for your actions or it is disavowing this and 
halting the actions as must the people you legally represent here since 
it is them who you are the fiduciary for.
> Saying "proceed" can encompass everything from "I don't believe the claims are valid" to "The claims are valid but I am prepared to pay the license fee to get this technical solution", but you don'…
No saying PROCEED means "That I have direct and provable direction from 
my sponsor that they will assume any liability for my participation in 
this development"... and nothing less.  The validity of the patent and 
the claims are relevant to this Intellectual Property process...

> Keith

The real issue is whether GeoSpatial.ORG is willing to take the chance - 
they are the party with the actual legal liability - they sponsor not 
only the initiative but through their formal membership sponsor this IP 
Development - so its them and your SPONSORS and NOT YOU who make this 
decision.

By the way - if you personally take that decision away from you SPONSOR 
you may be committing electronic fraud by wire under the fiduciary 
standards and if you folks are too arrogant to believe you are immune 
here because you folks as a group within IETF voted so and the IPR-WG 
told you - well...I strongly suggest that your actions are in frat 
criminal in nature.

Under BCP 78/79 you must as  an IETF participant assert legally that 
"you have a formal power of attorney from your sponsor" to work on and 
assign their IP rights. The fact  almost no one here actually has that 
shows the constant fraud created here and its time that fraud was fully 
exposed ... So you personally (those of you without this legal standing) 
are in fact committing fraud here as well.

Its really that simple and trying to cloud the IP issue isnt the thing 
to do - either GeoPRIV WG Chair or  GeoSpatial.ORG and the SPONSORS have 
to formally declare that they are responsible commercially for any 
damage to patents already in place the IETF GeoPRIV does... that's all.

Todd Glassey

> Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5142 - Release Date: 07/19/12
>
>