Subject: Re: Key-rollover IPR disclosure

From: Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT co-chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 14:02:26 -0500

We have received a response from Diversinet.com about more detailed
licence terms and the status of their patent applications in other
countries and here is their response:

<quote>
"Diversinet's position at this time is that it is worthwhile, from a public 
relations perspective, for it to license its technology on terms that are 
reciprocal, reasonable and royalty free, if such technology is incorporated 
into a specification. Our general license would contain terms that are 
typical in a commercial intellectual property license, and would include a 
requirement that any organization using  the technology covered by our 
patent would have to disclose prescribed language indicating that the 
licensee's service or product incorporates intellectual property owned by 
Diversinet, and that such organization would agree to be referenceable by 
Diversinet in any publicity regarding Diversinet's patent portfolio."

We also have a patent application #2306505 that was filed in Canada on Aug 
13, 1998. The application is identical to the patent that was obtained from 
Israel.

I am planning to update our 2 IPR filed for IETF to include the above 
paragraph and the Canadian patent application.
</quote>

Chairs are not sure what exactly what the next step is, but we will
keep you posted when we find out.

         Olafur & Olaf

At 13:21 15/02/2005, Ólafur Gudmundsson/DNSEXT co-chair wrote:
>Dear Colleagues,
>
>An IPR[*] disclosure has been made. It relates to two drafts in our
>working group:
>         draft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-timers
>         draft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-threshold
>
>The  disclosure has been made by "Diversinet.com" and can be found
>in the IETF IPR disclosure database:
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=530
>and
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=531
>
>Copies of the patent application can be found on
>http://stora.ogud.com/DNSSEC/key-rollover/key-rollover-patent-Application.pdf
>a copy of the patent certificate can be found in
>http://stora.ogud.com/DNSSEC/key-rollover/key-rollover-patent-certificate.pdf
>
>The licensing terms of this patent are not known yet. The chairs
>will inquire about licensing terms in neutral terms and report to the group.
>
>We want to issue is a "rat hole" alert:
>Working groups tend to discuss the validity of patent claims, the
>licensing terms and such at great lengths. In the end patent issues
>are not technical but legal issues. It is up to the implementors of
>technology under IPR to deal with these issues, not the working group.
>If the IPR prohibits implementation than the WG would like to know,
>from implementors. As rough consensus without running code does not make 
>sense.
>
>Or to paraphrase the above: we all have an opinion on IPR, this
>is not the list to rehash those.
>
>--Olaf and Olafur
>   DNSEXT WG Chairs
>
>We'll try to maintain documentation on our (experimental) DNSEXT twiki: 
>http://dnsext.secret-wg.org
>
>[*] IPR == Intellectual PRoperty i.e. patent
>
>--
>to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
>the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
>archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Mike StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:20:05 -0500

As requested by the chair, I'm posting text from another IPR disclosure 
that describes terms that would be less onerous than the terms currently 
offered by the discloser.  The current terms in disclosures 548 and 549 
require "any organization using the technology" to also agree to be cited 
in publicity material from Diversinet and I'm fairly sure that will be a 
deal breaker for many implementers, and definitely for the "users".

>Regarding this internet draft "IMAP Extension for CHECKPOINT Synchronization",
>draft-wener-lemonade-checkpoint-01.txt, to the extent this draft is included
>into final IETF standard specification, Nokia agrees not to assert those 
>claims
>in Nokia patents that apply to this submission and are technically 
>necessary to
>implement the IETF standard spesification against any other party in 
>respect of
>its implementation of the specification, provided that the party relying 
>on thiscommitment does not assert its patents against Nokia.

At 02:02 PM 3/8/2005, Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT co-chair wrote:
>"Diversinet's position at this time is that it is worthwhile, from a 
>public relations perspective, for it to license its technology on terms 
>that are reciprocal, reasonable and royalty free, if such technology is 
>incorporated into a specification. Our general license would contain terms 
>that are typical in a commercial intellectual property license, and would 
>include a requirement that any organization using  the technology covered 
>by our patent would have to disclose prescribed language indicating that 
>the licensee's service or product incorporates intellectual property owned 
>by Diversinet, and that such organization would agree to be referenceable 
>by Diversinet in any publicity regarding Diversinet's patent portfolio."
>
>13, 1998. The application is identical to the patent that was obtained 
>from Israel.
>

---

From: Ben Laurie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:51:53 +0000

Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT co-chair wrote:
> incorporated into a specification. Our general license would contain 
> terms that are typical in a commercial intellectual property license, 
> and would include a requirement that any organization using  the 
> technology covered by our patent would have to disclose prescribed 
> language indicating that the licensee's service or product incorporates 
> intellectual property owned by Diversinet, and that such organization 
> would agree to be referenceable by Diversinet in any publicity regarding 
> Diversinet's patent portfolio."
> 
> We also have a patent application #2306505 that was filed in Canada on 
> Aug 13, 1998. The application is identical to the patent that was 
> obtained from Israel.
> 

This statement does not seem to lead to anything usable in several ways. 
Firstly, it only states their position _at this time_, and so could 
change at the drop of a hat. Secondly, it is still unclear whether they 
intend _end users_ to be referencable (certainly that's what they say if 
read literally). Thirdly, reciprocity may be ok for implementers, but 
again, it is not clear whether this applies to end users - if it does, I 
can't imagine end users being interested, in general.

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html       http://www.thebunker.net/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff