Subject: [sidr] consensus call on IPR'd technologies

From: Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:23:53 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

We spent some time before and after the last meeting discussing IPR 
issues.

My view of the discussion is that the working group prefers non-IPR'd 
technologies if given a choice, but there was no consensus for rejecting 
IPR'd technologies completely.  Therefore, drafts that have IPR claims 
filed against them can both be adopted as working group work items and 
be retained as working group work items.

--Sandy

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:02:30 -0400

At 12:23 PM -0400 3/16/10, Sandra Murphy wrote:
>We spent some time before and after the last meeting discussing IPR issues.
>
>My view of the discussion is that the working group prefers 
>non-IPR'd technologies if given a choice, but there was no consensus 
>for rejecting IPR'd technologies completely.  Therefore, drafts that 
>have IPR claims filed against them can both be adopted as working 
>group work items and be retained as working group work items.
>
>--Sandy

I agree with your suggested way forward.

I contacted the IPR guy cited in the Cisco disclosure, provided 
citations to previously published work in the area, and requested a 
clarification of what was being claimed vs. what was acknowledged as 
prior art.  I am disappointed that he has not chosen to reply, after 
a message in which he asked me to specify the IPR disclosure to which 
I was responding :-).

Steve