Subject: RE: [Sip] IPR disclosure on MESSAGE and related use of SIP

From: "Hearty, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 15:10:20 -0700

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I looked over the patent quickly and
all the examples in the text were around using the INFO method, not the
MESSAGE method.  It was of course laced with language making it sound
rather general so perhaps it could be applied to other SIP methods.

John Hearty
Level3

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Adam Roach
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 12:50 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; Dean Willis
Subject: Re: [Sip] IPR disclosure on MESSAGE and related use of SIP

Srini Krishnamoorthy wrote:

>  Please help understand the detailed impact of this ... thanks.
>
>  Or should I just wait to see what transpires?? 
>  
>

Well, as heinous as all of this is, I think the appropriate response 
would be to put your efforts into developing an MSRP client instead of a

MESSAGE-based implementation.

/a

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 17:54:12 -0600

I'm nothing like a lawyer, so don't take this as legal advice. On the 
other hand, I've assisted with the IPR process (my own IPR and others') 
at two different companies, so I have some reasonable layperson 
background here.

What /really/ matters in a patent are the /independent/ claims. That is, 
the ones that don't refer to any of the other claims.

So, to evaluate the impact of this patent, look at claims 1, 9, 13, 22, 
25, 28, and 32. In a vacuum. Ignore the entire rest of the document.

The other claims are there just in case the independent claims are ruled 
to be too broad. They progressively narrow the scope so the patent can 
"fall back" to one of these narrower scopes. Unless the patent is 
challenged in court, they are just noise.

Anything that's not a claim is there just to provide context for the 
claims; it doesn't affect what can be enforced.

/a