[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Specific problems in the Ericsson IPR statement?
- To: Jari Arkko <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Specific problems in the Ericsson IPR statement?
- From: Jeroen Massar <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 10:28:10 +0200
- Cc: shim6 <email@example.com>
- Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAAMFBMVEVdMCzbmJGsZlhiV3T5 6d9cSmS5f3/kvrwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAuxjs+AAAACXBIWXMAAAsTAAALEwEA mpwYAAACNklEQVR42m1Sy27bMBBcyNAHUDCUq7xsmGshgrq3EOKrIII9VzTKDyjc5vc7u5ScBOjC z52dmX2I2qQRUogx4p2CfiSq6SBIUDxUrAIJ1fLfy7eXn5GWXUn+ab6qBWVEEQt+z8tX8KR5TTzD G6QQ9ZNaqfeiNnKxEURRVIaqptA0zJy8lAMTRvVAlnNLKSrDR2Wk0CJNeNFJ6xGk9Qsh3RANRKnm tasQFqQa1CPa6CvQihQhzcOgQHgwBFiQrww6GFDyn4AUHwBsTtJVjda/S4Vl/R+AO6wyNQ8f26Kk h1vZ5R2gg4HlpIU1PrZV221kHwAasB4e2BiaInXhbXhnyNbbymB2lXFTwAdIDcxd1s5OSriRXDup SgHWH0CVishxcZxNB4tx2qWil7m5h1IejjGsSHm566W4osPH0fupmnuPXkvpC7uf1I7alKcoALSQ L1wwvFdkwo0RQXbVlwygiSI0+Qp8xeClK64ThhVk3A/WikkuBgCj3elgWHaugCDA6RNj5exyuZgO /YIBd4qhAhAqZhMTtvYmu9JBR2i5izE9y5M3glS3P47P7LbtAoDkANbWOSyQ1ZVOGJgEJzgYwuHc m81kfVLZ3kjqvawB9saYrj5Gq6VV6/2ERW1GtEqH+54mkZpG/+N8zbnvgZhz9/KdWls9pvv8LWMj iKe331/mPwBCzc/XXDZoPc3z68s8/8oE6+k8A4AJCCiZpazIiVExv90LJhRCjVd42PMVJfe/0tX1 AOZ/QEHqFM0e9EMAAAAASUVORK5CYII=
- In-reply-to: <44F30991.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Openpgp: id=333E7C23
- Organization: Unfix
- References: <44F2F93A.email@example.com> <44F2FE44.firstname.lastname@example.org> <44F30991.email@example.com>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:184.108.40.206) Gecko/20060719 Thunderbird/220.127.116.11 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666
Jari Arkko wrote:
Jeroen Massar wrote:
Do I read it correctly that this says:
- Company X has patent Z
- Company X implements this thing
- Ericsson implements thing with patent Z
- Company X can't protect it's patent as it implement this.
No. I should have included all the details - actually
company X has a choice between 1. The free license,
with an implication to allow use of Z on the same terms,
OR 2. the default Ericsson IETF license which is so called
RAND license (reasonable and non-discriminatory). In
the latter case there is no impact on Z but the license
isn't necessarily free.
Jim's issue was related to what you are asking. He
wanted X to be able to implement Shim6 for free if
Z is in some unrelated field, e.g., steam engines
or CDMA radios. The proposed change that I'll
try to convince to my IPR department to do means
that this would be possible, as long as X is
not simultaneously requiring Ericsson to give
Shim6 IPR for free and asking Ericsson to pay
royalty for some other IETF standards track
That sounds very reasonable to me.
Maybe to solve all these IPR constructs, would it be an idea to have a
"IETF IPR" document; aka a document which states that "when using a IETF
standards track document that one can't sue/pay royalties concerning any
of the other companies that have a IETF standards track document
involving an IPR". (But then worded correctly ;) IANAL etc.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature