Brian E Carpenter <brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> writes:
On 2007-05-23 14:19, Jeroen Massar wrote:
...
Alternatively, directly look up
http://www1.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-claise-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream-00.txt
(The above long formatted lines are not mine, 72 is a nice limit FYI)
Sorry to be blunt, but what exactly is the point again of 'opening up
NetFlow' if there is going to be IPR stuff being smacked upon IPFIX and
thus encumbering it?
It's a defensive non-assert disclosure, which IMHO is equivalent to RF
for anyone who plays nicely. Actually a defensive non-assert may
indirectly *protect* a normal implementor, when you think about its
impact on a third party implementor who does try to assert a patent.
Such clauses may be acceptable when we know what the patent is, and what
it covers, but this refer to unpublished patent applications. This
particular license also explicitly enable Cisco to collect retroactive
royalties against anyone who sues Cisco over _any_ patent.
I don't believe these are acceptable terms for a Standards Track
document.
I believe it should be possible to implement a standards track RFC and
be able to sue Cisco if they clearly infringe on your patents. If you
agree with this notion, I don't see how you can reach a conclusion that
these terms are good.
/Simon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf