On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Brian Rosen wrote:
This text does not seem to cover what we usually encounter in protocol
development. What happens is that you claim a patent that would be
infringed by implementing the protocol. Another company has its own
patent that it also claims would be infringed by implementing the
protocol. You are willing to grant a worldwide, royalty free license to
the patent to anyone, including the other company, so long as the other
company doesn't try to force you to pay a royalty or take out a more
restrictive license to his patent.
Take a look at:
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/DYNAMICSOFT-SIMPLE.txt
for an example.
I'm trying to understand the distinction you're making here. A licensor
who distributes some code using, say, the Apache 2.0 license, gives (in
section 3) a patent license to those using the code, but terminates that
license for parties that initiate patent litigation of their own about the
code. An IETF IPR disclosure such as the one you cite above isn't a
software license, but it seems like the intent is exactly the same. Can
you clarify?
(Actually, the Dynamicsoft statement is much broader, since it says "a
patent or other intellectual property right", meaning that if I sue
Dynamicsoft for violating my trademark I lose my patent license. This
seems like a gratuitous mixing of different IPR domains, but I'll bet
NOUIAL, so I'll stop there.)
- RL "Bob"
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf