Todd,
My email to the PWE list and to my co-authors was neither about scope nor
validity.
The trigger was an email from the IETF Secretariat informing the co-authors of
draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map
of a new IPR disclosure.
I had recently finished extensive editorial work in this draft, and in Anaheim
I requested a second WG LC;
so the timing for a discussion of IPR issues related to this draft could not
have been better.
I certainly did not study the application sufficiently to be able to express an
opinion as to patentability.
I merely noted that as an co-author of the draft,
and as someone with experience in patent prosecution,
that the disclosure was prima facie directed towards the wrong draft.
I sent the email purely as draft co-author and long-time PWE3 participant.
My employer has no direct interest in the issue.
Y(J)S
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of todd glassey
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 22:00
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Posting of IPR Disclosure related to Cisco's Statement of
IPR relating to draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-12
On 4/14/2010 9:20 PM, Dean Willis wrote:
This was more a discussion of scope than validity.
Of course, having public discourse in a community of experts that
disparrages the validity of a claim could bolster invalidation
arguments.
Or create a liability for the IETF and the parties involved.
So I can see how this might be a disfavored act in the IEEE community,
which seems to be slanted towards rights holders (I speak as a
long-term member of IEEE and as a consultant on IPR). Perhaps we'd all
be better off if the IEEE were a little more critical of misguided
claims? Regular raising of a hue and cry of "Bullshit!" would go a
long way towards reducing the damage caused by unmerited patents.
Dean - I think the problem is that the individuals in the IETF who represent
their sponsors are generally not licensed patent agents or attorneys (although
there are a couple of exceptions to this last one) and so its really hard for
someone who has no experience in the patent process to make any reliable
commentary.
The unfortunate occurance in the IETF is that people make specific claims about
what they professionally believe is and is not patentable but the reality is
that no matter what they say they are not the patent agency or its examiners so
the act of making these declarations as fact is literally practicing law
without a license IMHO. Especially when these individuals make flat claims
about the validity of a patent's status or filing.
Individuals may have a personal opinion but I am betting that the legal opinion
of the Sponsor as to some other party's patent filing is not something that the
Sponsor's are willing to grant to their un-skilled and non-legally trained
technology players here in the IETF.
Todd Glassey
--
Dean Willis
------- Original message -------
From: Trowbridge, Stephen J (Steve)
<steve(_dot_)trowbridge(_at_)alcatel-lucent(_dot_)com>
Cc: ietf-ipr(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org, pwe3(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org,
adrian(_dot_)farrel(_at_)huawei(_dot_)com,
IETF(_at_)core3(_dot_)amsl(_dot_)com,
andrew(_dot_)g(_dot_)malis(_at_)verizon(_dot_)com,
stbryant(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com
Sent: 14.4.'10, 8:47
Hi all,
In IEEE we are admonished to never discuss the essentiality or
validity of patent claims. I cannot believe this is considered an
appropriate discussion in IETF.
Regards,
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: pwe3-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:pwe3-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf
Of Yaakov Stein
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 1:44 AM
To: mmorrow(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com; lmartini(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com;
tom(_dot_)nadeau(_at_)bt(_dot_)com;
Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha);
david(_dot_)i(_dot_)allan(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com;
Busschbach, Peter B (Peter)
Cc: IETF(_at_)core3(_dot_)amsl(_dot_)com; Secretariat;
pwe3(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
adrian(_dot_)farrel(_at_)huawei(_dot_)com;
andrew(_dot_)g(_dot_)malis(_at_)verizon(_dot_)com;
stbryant(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Posting of IPR Disclosure related to Cisco's
Statement of IPR relating to draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-12
This disclosure (1311) quotes application US20080089227A1: Protecting
multi-segment pseudowires which may impact
draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy, and perhaps ICCP, MS-PW architecture, and MS-PW
setup.
There is no apparent connection with oam-msg-map - in fact the claims
stress that the triggers are failures of PSN elements (e.g. S-PEs)
and are NOT from the ACs, making any connection untenable.
A previous disclosure by the same company (863) refers to
20080285466 : Interworking between MPLS/IP and Ethernet OAM
mechanisms which may impact mpls-eth-oam-iwk, but not oam-msg-map,
unless one interprets the first claim and its dependents much more
broadly than supported by the background and description.
Can someone from the company claiming this IPR fix the information in
these disclosures ?
At very least that company is required to disclose IPR is holds with
respect to the appropriate drafts (unless it is willing to risk
forfeiting its rights with respect to these ...).
However, with respect to oam-msg-map I would like to request that it
consider removing inappropriate disclosures.
Of course, if after consideration it believes that these disclosures
ARE appropriate, I would love to hear the reasoning.
Y(J)S
-----Original Message-----
From: IETF Secretariat [mailto:ietf-ipr(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 18:46
To: mmorrow(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com; Yaakov Stein;
lmartini(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com;
tom(_dot_)nadeau(_at_)bt(_dot_)com;
Mustapha(_dot_)aissaoui(_at_)Alcatel-lucent(_dot_)com;
david(_dot_)i(_dot_)allan(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com;
busschbach(_at_)alcatel-lucent(_dot_)com
Cc: stbryant(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com;
adrian(_dot_)farrel(_at_)huawei(_dot_)com; pwe3(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
andrew(_dot_)g(_dot_)malis(_at_)verizon(_dot_)com;
matthew(_dot_)bocci(_at_)alcatel-lucent(_dot_)com;
ipr-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Posting of IPR Disclosure related to Cisco's Statement of
IPR relating to draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-12
Dear Monique Morrow, Yaakov Stein, Luca Martini, Thomas Nadeau,
Mustapha Aissaoui, David Allan, Peter Busschbach:
An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled
"Pseudowire (PW) OAM Message Mapping" (draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map)
was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2010-04-07 and has been
posted on the "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures"
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1311/). The title of the IPR
disclosure is "Cisco's Statement of IPR relating to
draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-12."
The IETF Secretariat
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf