Subject: [Mipshop] FMIPv6

From: Wassim Haddad <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:49:15 +0300 (EEST)

Hi Rajeev,

Can you clarify please what is the IPR status for FMIPv6?

Regards,

Wassim H.

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:53:40 -0700

Hi Wassim,

AFAIK, the specified protocol is IPR-free.
But, please consult the IETF IPR page.

Regards,

-Rajeev

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 14:07:09 +0200

Rajeev Koodli wrote:
> 
> Hi Wassim,
> 
> AFAIK, the specified protocol is IPR-free. But, please consult the
> IETF IPR page.

Hi Rajeev,

Please describe more details about the status of IPR on FMIPv6
(specified or unspecified).  For example:

I went to the IETF IPR page http://www.ietf.org/ipr and searched for
declarations, but there are many, I have difficulty identifying the
right IPR Disclosure that pertains to FMIP.  Could you please point the
right one(s), thanks.

Another example is I went to the patents directory outside IETF and I
could find some IPR that may pertain to some of the aspects in
FMIPv6.  One particular example is  US6930988 B2.  So, could you please
offer a more detailed status on IPR of FMIPv6.

Remark I am not trying to discard a protocol because it has IPRs on
them, far from that.  But after a precise status is given publicly about
IPR and FMIPv6 then maybe the group can look at further advancement,
RAND, etc.

Thanks,

Alex
PS: a possible negative outcome for FMIPv6 discussion participants,
    including myself, is that although the participants are not aware of
    some IPR on FMIP that IPR may still exist and be enforced outside
    IETF.

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:53:24 -0700

speaking for Rajeev, I think he is out of office today.

> Please describe more details about the status of IPR on FMIPv6

Rajeev said as far as _he knows_, there is no IPR on
FMIPv6.

> right IPR Disclosure that pertains to FMIP.  Could you please point the

you can search the IPR disclosures page.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_search.cgi

all IETF participants, if they are aware of any IPRs on
any draft or any RFC are supposed to issue an IPR
disclosure statement. as soon as they are issued, they
appear at https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_disclosure.cgi.

if someone outside of IETF has filed an IPR on FMIPv6
and he/she does not participate in the IETF, then it
is possible that IPRs exist and they are not listed
at https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_disclosure.cgi.
the IETF cant do much about that.

if you need to do a thorough search, look up the USPTO
database. http://www.uspto.gov/main/sitesearch.htm. (I
dont know about patent databases outside the US). or
ask your own IPR engineers/lawyers. the ones I know
inside Nokia are pretty good at digging up IPRs on any
technology. you company must have some people who are
paid to do just that. :)

Vijay

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:35:06 +0200

Thanks Vijay for the pointers, I have a new one, see below,

Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> Rajeev said as far as _he knows_, there is no IPR on FMIPv6.
>

Thanks, I've used that tool for mipshop WG and it only gave disclosures
with respect to HMIPv6.  It gave no other disclosure.  So it is true
that as far as Rajeev or anyone else may learn by using that tool is:
there's no IPR disclosure on FMIPv6.

> all IETF participants, if they are aware of any IPRs on any draft or 
> any RFC are supposed to issue an IPR disclosure statement.

I think that before formal IPR disclosure statements any participant may
make informal statements about IPR on FMIPv6, I usually do.

If that is not taken into account, do you think I can go to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_notify.cgi and file an IPR
Disclosure about FMIPv6?

> if someone outside of IETF has filed an IPR on FMIPv6 and he/she does
>  not participate in the IETF, then it is possible that IPRs exist and
>  they are not listed at 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_disclosure.cgi. the IETF cant
>  do much about that.

Hmmm, I suppose it is up to the WG (not a particular company) to decide
whether FMIPv6 with IPR or FMIPv6 w/o IPR to proceed to Standards Track,
and if FMIPv6 with IPR to proceed to Standards Track it is up to the WG
again to decide what kind of licensing scheme (RAND, RR, other) the WG
commits FMIPv6 to Standards Track.  And, finally, it is probably up to
the WG (not a particular company) to decide whatever the WG wants with
respect to IPR.

> the ones I know inside Nokia are pretty good at digging up IPRs on 
> any technology. you company must have some people who are paid to do 
> just that. :)

Well, let me congratulate everyone for their good work.  Engineers
talking to lawyers and vice-versa is a lengthy procedure eventually
making everyone happy in the end.

Alex

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 14:49:56 -0700

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_notify.cgi and file an IPR

normally a disclosure is made after the patent lawyers
figure out the claims. not because I think some IPR may
cover some draft/RFC. for example, by searching on Google,
if I come across an IPR related to an IETF technology, I
wont go and file something at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_notify.cgi. it is
kind of hard to figure out the exact claims (alteast for
me). I bring it to the attention of our IPR folks and they
figure out if the IPR covers the particular IETF
technology. then I would go and file something at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_notify.cgi. not
before that.

Vijay

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:02:16 +0200

Vijay Devarapalli wrote:

>> Thanks, I've used that tool for mipshop WG and it only gave
>> disclosures with respect to HMIPv6.  It gave no other disclosure.
>> So it is true that as far as Rajeev or anyone else may learn by
>> using that tool is: there's no IPR disclosure on FMIPv6.
>> 
>> 
>>> all IETF participants, if they are aware of any IPRs on any draft
>>> or any RFC are supposed to issue an IPR disclosure statement.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I think that before formal IPR disclosure statements any
>> participant may make informal statements about IPR on FMIPv6, I
>> usually do.
>> 
> normally a disclosure is made after the patent lawyers figure out the
> claims. not because I think some IPR may cover some draft/RFC. for
> example, by searching on Google, if I come across an IPR related to
> an IETF technology, I wont go and file something at 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_notify.cgi. it is kind of
> hard to figure out the exact claims (alteast for me). I bring it to
> the attention of our IPR folks and they figure out if the IPR covers
> the particular IETF technology. then I would go and file something at
>  https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_notify.cgi. not before that.

That sounds logic, and I agree with you.  Like you and Rajeev, I am not
myself a lawyer so I have difficulty identifying a particular Patent
claim covering a particular RFC aspect.

And, because of that, I can't make definitive formal statements neither
under the form "FMIPv6 has IPR".  And nor "FMIPv6 is IPR-free".

But it is still up to the WG, and not a particular company, or that
particular company's lawyers, what to do at the IETF with respect to IPR.

For example, I would not forward anyone to some employer's IPR lawyers
with respect to this WG IPR matters, advancement and progress.  But to
this WG Chairs.

Alex

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:02:55 -0800

DoCoMo believes it has IPR related to FMIP. I had asked our IPR people to 
file a statement, but I see that the statement has not been filed. I've 
informed them, and it will be filed.

            jak

PS: No flames, questions or any further email on this, please. I am posting 
this statement to abide by the rules of IETF and I am not going to discuss, 
defend, or otherwise engage in any further public email on this topic.