Re: Second Last Call: <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt> (Sieve Notifica tion Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



John,

a worry I have with going out with such a massive demand set for this IPR code violation is that we'd be encouraging the other IPR behaviour we've seen: That of saying nothing.

The current Huawei people who caused this disclosure to be filed deserve our praise for doing the Right Thing now, even while the people in the past who did not deserve our condemnation.

On one point, however, I'm aligned:

On 01/26/2012 10:31 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

(3) A request to the company involved to remove the reciprocity
clause from the license stated in the disclosure statement.  As
a show of good faith, they should agree to derive no benefit
from the patent other than what praise accrues from having it
awarded.
Indeed, this reciprocity clause is of the form that I used to complain to Cisco's IPR lawyer about Cisco making when I was at Cisco: It asserts the right of withdrawal of this license for *any* use of *any* patent against Huawei - that means that anyone who dares to depend on this license is effectively granting a license to *all* their patents to the holder of this patent.

The proper scope of reciprocity clauses is a fertile ground for debate (and nearly impossible to hold a debate on, unfortunately), but this type is one that I am not happy to see.

                      Harald

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]