On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Brian Rosen wrote:
This text does not seem to cover what we usually encounter in protocol development. What happens is that you claim a patent that would be infringed by implementing the protocol. Another company has its own patent that it also claims would be infringed by implementing the protocol. You are willing to grant a worldwide, royalty free license to the patent to anyone, including the other company, so long as the other company doesn't try to force you to pay a royalty or take out a more restrictive license to his patent.
Take a look at: http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/DYNAMICSOFT-SIMPLE.txt
for an example.
I'm trying to understand the distinction you're making here. A licensor who distributes some code using, say, the Apache 2.0 license, gives (in section 3) a patent license to those using the code, but terminates that license for parties that initiate patent litigation of their own about the code. An IETF IPR disclosure such as the one you cite above isn't a software license, but it seems like the intent is exactly the same. Can you clarify?
(Actually, the Dynamicsoft statement is much broader, since it says "a patent or other intellectual property right", meaning that if I sue Dynamicsoft for violating my trademark I lose my patent license. This seems like a gratuitous mixing of different IPR domains, but I'll bet NOUIAL, so I'll stop there.)
- RL "Bob"
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf