Subject: Patent application for draft-dhcp-agent-options

From: [email-masked] (by way of Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>)
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 10:19:04 -0400 (EDT)

(Forwarded for Mike Patrick)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Working Group,

I apologize for delays in advancing the relay agent options draft. The IESG
required 
standard text from RFC2026 regarding intellectual property, including
patent applications,
and I misunderstood what was required from Motorola before adding this text.
Those hurdles are past, 
and I'm ready to submit a revised draft for the WG's consideration.

First, an important notice:

         This is to inform you that Motorola has applied for a patent which
may cover methods and
         devices described in the DHCP relay option draft
<draft-dhcp-agent-options-*.txt>.
         Inquiries are directed to Mr. Kirk Dailey, IP Legal Counsel,
         Motorola Internet and Networking Group, MS M2-300, 20 Cabot
         Blvd, Mansfield MA 02048, email: [email-masked],  regarding
CX096052.

I am submitting version 6 of the draft which adds required text in a new
section 7.0 "Intellectual
Property Notices" pursuant to the IETF standards process in RFC2026.  This
is the only difference
between -05 and -06. 

I am soliciting feedback to the list on the revised draft, which I will post
to the list under separate
cover.  BTW, I will be on vacation until  8/16 and will not be able to
respond to the list until that time.

Regards,
Mike Patrick
Motorola Internet and Networking Group

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 12:09:03 -0400 (EDT)

> may cover methods and devices described in the DHCP relay option draft
> Blvd, Mansfield MA 02048, email: [email-masked], regarding CX096052.

Michael, I think you owe us a great deal more explanation than this.
For starters, what exactly are you patenting?   Secondly, what are
your intentions with respect to the patent - is this a defensive
patent, does Motorola intent to attempt to prevent others from
deploying this technology through the use of patent protection, or
does Motorola intent to attempt to collect licensing fees for this
technology?

More to the point, though, why didn't you mention that you intended to
patent this at the very beginning of the process?   I personally have
expended quite a bit of effort both in helping you to come up with the
right solution for the problem, and also in actually implementing
features in the ISC DHCP server and relay agent that support this
technology.   You can be very certain that I would not have expended
any such effort if you had stated your intentions at the beginning of
the process.

I am asking you to take personal responsibity for this.   You
personally got up in front of all of us and made your proposal,
without giving us all the facts.   You then let us believe for over a
year and a half that this was going to be a free and open standard,
which you now tell us it is not.   You made free with our resources
and good will, and now it looks like you're going to patent the
results.

If you personally can't make a statement as to Motorola's intentions,
then you have an obligation to personally see to it that your lawyer
clearly and completely states Motorola's intentions, both in terms of
what Motorola is patenting, and also in terms of what Motorola's
intentions are in the event that the patent is granted.

I would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

		Ted Lemon

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 12:10:02 -0400 (EDT)

Based on Michael Patrick's announcement of Motorola's decision to try
to patent the technology behing the Relay Agent Information option
draft, I hereby propose that the draft be removed from the
consideration of this working group as a standard.

			       _MelloN_

---

From: [email-masked] (by way of Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>)
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 17:58:29 -0400 (EDT)

message sent to [email-masked] by [email-masked] follows.

I support this action.

I'll actually be quite happy to see it go, though I would have much
preferred it if Motorola been open about their intent to patent
aspects of this technology when they first brought it to the working
group.

The IETF's practice for quite some time has been to avoid the use of
patented technologies when suitable unpatented alternatives exist.
While it's unclear what Motorola will attempt to claim in their patent
application, it's clear that there are many other ways to solve the
same problem without the insertion of options by a relay agent...
indeed, some of them may be technically superior..

I've felt for a long time that the relay option is problematic from a
security perspective (it's much harder to protect the original message
from the client from modification if a relay agent in the middle can
modify it along the way).  Some sort of encapsulation-based scheme
(where the original packet from the client is included unmodified in
the message from the relay agent to the DHCP server) appears to be the
most obvious alternative..

				- Bill

---

From: "Glenn Waters" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 14:04:12 -0400 (EDT)

before we consider removing this work from the dhc working group i would
like to hear what michael has to say.  i too would like to see his prompt
attention to this matter.

/gww

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Ted
> Lemon
> Sent: Saturday, August 07, 1999 12:10
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Re: Patent application for draft-dhcp-agent-options
>
>
>

---

From: Rob Stevens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 07:46:00 -0400 (EDT)

Glenn Waters wrote:
>like to hear what michael has to say. ....

Yes. I don't want to re-act in an over hasty way
before I understand exactly what Motorola are
trying to do with this patent.

I'm seeking clarification from the counsel
that Michael mentioned.

Rob Stevens

---

From: [email-masked] (by way of Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>)
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 10:45:17 -0400 (EDT)

message sent to [email-masked] by [email-masked] follows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted,

In no way did Michael intend to mislead anyone.  He is attempting to get
approval from Motorola to provide the patent on a royalty-free basis.  The
official position should be known in the next couple of months.

Regards,
Kirk

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Kirk W. Dailey
Legal Counsel                                         
Internet and Networking Group                 
Motorola, Inc.                                                        
20 Cabot Boulevard                                             
Mansfield, MA 02048
USA
Phone: (508) 261-5385
Fax: (508) 339-7086
Email:    [email-masked]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, August 07, 1999 11:47 AM
To: Michael Patrick-LZZ007
Cc: Kirk.Dailey; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Patent application for draft-dhcp-agent-options 

Sincerely,

		Ted Lemon

---

From: [email-masked] (by way of Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>)
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 10:43:08 -0400 (EDT)

message sent to [email-masked] by [email-masked] follows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> attention to this matter.

I agree that more detail about exactly what is being patented is warranted
before we consider dropping it from the IETF. However, I would also like to
add that I too feel mislead by Motorola. In addition to the work that was done
on the dhcp agent info option draft, there was also other work (DHCP
authentication) that was affected by this draft, and which required a
non-trivial amount of work in order to ensure that the agent option
functionality would continue to work in an DHCP authentication environment.

In retrospect, I suppose we shouldn't have been too surprised, since of the
cable modem vendors out there, only motorola has implemented this
functionality. (if there are others that have that I don't know about, they
likely are very concerned about this turn of events).

> > consideration of this working group as a standard.

Mike Carney
SNT Internet Engineering
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Mailstop UBUR02-212
One Network Drive
Burlington, MA 01803

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 11:28:04 -0400 (EDT)

> official position should be known in the next couple of months.

Kirk, thanks for responding so quickly.   It's good to know what
Michael's intentions are.

However, until we have an official statement from Motorola to the
effect that they do not intend to enforce their intellectual property
rights based on this patent, I think it would be premature to write it
into a standard.  What will be different three months from now that
will allow Motorola to make an official statement on this matter?

			       _MelloN_

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 11:29:56 -0400 (EDT)

> We have internal approval policies that need to be adhered to.

Ick.   Been there, done that.

> Should not take 3 months.  Hopefully much shorter.

Great!  I'm really looking forward to getting this cleared up - this
draft has been around for a long time, is clearly useful, and it would
really be nice to finally put it to bed for once and for all.

Thanks for explaining, and for responding so quickly!

			       _MelloN_

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 11:30:37 -0400 (EDT)

> [Michael] is attempting to get approval from Motorola to provide the
> patent on a royalty-free basis.  The official position should be
> known in the next couple of months.

Given this statement, I recommend:
	- defer all work on this draft until this statement is made.

	- avoid deferring work on other drafts (e.g., security) just
	  because of interdependance with the deferred draft.

	- in particular, preventing any new issues relating to the relay
	  agent option from causing further delay on the DHCP security
          drafts... i.e., if there's a conflict, don't change (and
	  delay) security, since the relay agent option may not emerge
	  from the patent quagmire for months or years.

						- Bill

---

From: [email-masked] (by way of Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>)
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 12:12:10 -0400 (EDT)

message sent to [email-masked] by [email-masked] follows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have internal approval policies that need to be adhered to.  Should not
take 3 months.  Hopefully much shorter.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, August 09, 1999 10:43 AM
To: Dailey Kirk-AKD001
Cc: Patrick Michael-LZZ007; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Patent application for draft-dhcp-agent-options 

			       _MelloN_

---

From: Paul Barker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 12:48:10 -0400 (EDT)

UNSUBSCRIBE

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, August 09, 1999 10:43 AM
To: Dailey Kirk-AKD001
Cc: Patrick Michael-LZZ007; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Patent application for draft-dhcp-agent-options 

			       _MelloN_

Integralis Network Systems Ltd
Theale House
Brunel Road
Theale, Reading
RG7 4AQ
+44 (0) 118 9306060

Specialists in Network Security and Network Integration

[email-masked]
http://www.integralis.com

DISCLAIMER
Any opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and not necessarily the Company. This email and any files transmitted with it, including replies and forwarded copies (which may contain alterations) subsequently transmitted from the Company, are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. It may contain material protected by attorney-client privilege. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this email in error please notify the IT manager by telephone on +44 (0)118 930 6060 or via email to [email-masked], including a copy of this message. Please then delete this email and destroy any copies of it.

---

From: Eric Michelsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 14:38:00 -0400 (EDT)

> Sent: Saturday, August 07, 1999 9:09
..
> and good will, and now it looks like you're going to patent the

At one time, an inventor could only file a patent within one year of any
*public disclosure.*  I assume this is still true.  Can a valid patent
application be filed for an invention that was publicly disclosed a year and
a half ago?

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 00:15:35 -0400 (EDT)

>application be filed for an invention that was publicly disclosed a year and

According to the lawyers I have for such matters it was true 9 months
ago.  Two potential patents I wanted to put forth were not done for the
reasons above.  I had disclosed them a year before in some papers.
They are now in the public domain.  In my case I was concerned and
thought I should do them for defensive reasons as a vendor (defensive
patent), because for 90% of the cases I think software patents are bogus
and very questionable regarding "orginal" idea especially in the space
around that which is used by and within the TCP/IP protocol suite. But
I was convinced to check with the process because I would be bummed if
someone patented an idea I worked on with others which I lead as one
example.  When Thomas Jefferson started the patent office in the U.S.
Govt from what I have learned about the man after many years of studying
him we are yet again not using what his vision was, like so many other
things he gave us (e.g. public education, separation church/state,
Fededralism).

/jim

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 10:47:39 -0400 (EDT)

I guess I should know better by now than to publically demand an
apology on a mailing list when I don't know the facts.

Michael, having heard what Kirk has to say, it is now clear to me that
you did not intend to do what I feared you'd intended to do.  I made
an unwarranted assumption, and publically castigated you based on that
assumption.  I'm sorry for doing so, and I hope you can forgive me.

			       _MelloN_

---

From: Tim Salo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 16:51:43 -0400 (EDT)

> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 10:54:41 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <[email-masked]>
> 	[...]

Ted Lemon,

I believe your e-mail represents a level of professionalism to which
we all ought to aspire and that, were it more widespread, would considerably
strengthen the IETF.

Nice job,
	-tjs