Subject: MEGACO patents by Nortel Networks

From: Tim Vetter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:11:16 -0600

I don't know if everyone else has read the following
information from the "Megaco ATM MG Implementation Document".
It appears that Nortel is actively creating patents during
the MEGACOP standard creation process.

Text:
=====
In compliance with Section 10.3.1.6 of RFC 2026, the contributor has
personal knowledge that Nortel Networks Corporation and/or one of its
subsidiaries ("Nortel Networks") has intellectual property rights
embodied in this contribution.  Specifically, Nortel Networks has
applied for and/or has the following U.S. patent(s) and foreign
equivalent(s) relating to inventions disclosed in this contribution:

   U.S. Patent Filing Date: August 23, 1999
   U.S. Patent Application No: 60/150,271
   Title: Improved Packet Media Gateway

The contributor does not represent that he or she personally knows of
all potentially pertinent proprietary and intellectual property rights
owned or claimed by Nortel Networks (if any) or third parties.

In the event any part of this contribution is included in an Internet
Standard approved by Nortel Networks, Nortel Networks agrees to license
any of its intellectual property rights embodied in such included part
to any party implementing the Internet Standard upon reasonable,
non-discriminatory terms on a reciprocal basis. In this context,
"reciprocal basis" means that the licensee must be willing to license
any of its intellectual property rights essential to the implementation
of the Internet Standard to Nortel Networks and its subsidiaries upon
reasonable, non-discriminatory terms.

This is found at:
=================
ftp://standards.nortelnetworks.com/megaco/docs/latest/draft-scoggins-megaco-atmimp-00.txt

Tim Vetter
"I do not speak for Alcatel"

---

From: "Drage, Keith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 10:42:36 +0000

My assumption is that currently no IPR declaration has been made in ITU-T or
IETF for the Megaco requirements or protocol documents themselves.

My assumption is that the Nortel Networks declaration applies to the
contents of the ID itself.

It would still be nice to know what the IPR claim is. Has this information
been given as part of its presentation in Washington?

Having read this when the ID first came out, I duly asked our patent
representatives to get a copy, to find out that the rules for US patents are
different from the ones over here. US Patent applications are not published.

IPR declarations, in ITU-T and I assume IETF, is a two step process, not one
step. 1) Anyone with knowledge of a patent declares it before approval. 2)
Participants in the approval stage then decide whether they want the
specification, under the terms of the declaration, be it licenced on a free
and fair basis or not. I havent yet been given enough information to do
that. I cannot tell whether the IPR impinges on any implementation I might
want to make, or even whether I think the application invalid, e.g. because
of prior publication. Judging the validity of the IPR claim is not part of
the approval process, but I believe I am still entitled to know what the
claims are.

Does all the protocol related documentation of MEGACO also form part of
ITU-T, or is it only the main MEGACO protocol. Does this also form part of a
future ITU-T contribution?

By the way, I note the word "reciprocal" appearing in this wording. This
word has no place in the standard ITU-T wording, as enshrined in the
relevant resolutions and A. series recs. that I have access to, although
various member organisations think they can use it.

Keith Drage

> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Keith Drage ([email-masked])
> Siemens Communications Limited,
> Technology Drive, Beeston, Nottingham NG9 1LA, UK
> Tel: +44 115 943 4991   Fax: +44 115 943 4992
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Internet communications are not secure and therefore Siemens
> Communications Limited does not accept legal responsibility for the
> contents of this message. Any views or opinions presented are solely
> those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Siemens
> Communications Limited unless otherwise specifically stated.
>

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Vetter [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 6:51 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: MEGACO patents by Nortel Networks

Nancy,

What you are saying is that if I want to implement use
MEGACOP for ATM that I had better get the lawyers involved?
I never expected to have to consult the lawyers to use the
MEGACOP standard.  Even if NORTEL doesn't charge, the lawyers
will charge a great deal of money and take a great deal of
time. What kind of "open standard" is this?  Sounds like
a "NORTEL proprietary standard" to me.

I trust that Tom Taylor, who works for NORTEL, will be sure
to keep any NORTEL intellectual property out of the MEGACO
standard.

Tim Vetter