Subject: [dhcwg] IPR statement related to draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-X.txt

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 18:43:09 -0500

PacketFront has issued a modified IPR statement about
draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-X.txt (publication on
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.html is pending):

     PacketFront Sweden AB would like to update its IPR notification from
     April 17, 2003.

     The document draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-X.txt describes technology or
     solutions for which PacketFront has related patents or patent applications
     pending.

     If a document based on this draft becomes an IETF standard PacketFront is
     prepared to license, on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, any
     related PacketFront patents to the extent required to comply with
     the standard.

     Sweden AB

     Mats E. Jonsson

     Deputy CEO

This new IPR statement is compatible with the text in section 10.3.2(C)
of RFC 2026, and with similar IPRs on other IETF documents.  Are there
any objections now to resuming consideration of
draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-05.txt as a Proposed Standard?

- RAlph

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

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 18:10:14 -0600

> draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-05.txt as a Proposed Standard?

Yes.   I object, unless PacketFront states that they are willing to 
license this for free to people who agree to cross-license.   This 
functionality doesn't deserve a patent, and isn't useful enough to 
merit advancing since it is encumbered by patent applications.

---

From: "Bernie Volz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 22:48:03 -0500

I'm inclined to agree with Ted, but I have no idea how strong a need exists
for this capability. If the need is strong, people will do it anyway
(perhaps using an "unassigned" relay-agent suboption) and they'll have to
deal with the patent issues anyway (or perhaps be exposed without knowing
about potential issues before forging ahead).

So, if there is a strong need for this, I'd prefer we move forward with it
and just make sure that there is a clear indication in the RFC that this MAY
be covered by one or more patents (either now or in the future). See RFC
2026 10.3.2(C): "The IESG may also direct that a summary of the results be
included in any RFC published containing the specification."

So, that leaves the issue as to whether there is a strong need for this
suboption. I personally don't.

- Bernie 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ted
Lemon
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 7:10 PM
To: Ralph Droms
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] IPR statement related to
draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-X.txt

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 08:29:00 -0500

Hi Ted.

> merit advancing since it is encumbered by patent applications.

Note: each WG member needs to decide for themselves whether or not to
support advancement of this spec based on whatever concerns (including
IPR) they have.

But I at least would like to understand why Ted (and others?)  believe
that the above terms should be required before advancing this
document, when other DHC documents also with IPR terms that are not
"free" have apparently not raised a similar concern. That is, what are
the issues that make this case different than others? I think it would
be good to understand what the general criteria would be, as the issue
will likely come up again in the future (that is unfortunately the
reality).

E.g., see
http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-ietf-dhc-server-override.txt

Thomas

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 08:53:25 -0600

On Feb 6, 2004, at 7:29 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
> "free" have apparently not raised a similar concern.

The Motorola patent on the relay agent information option has the IPR 
terms I am asking for.   The reason it has those terms is because I 
raised a big fuss when Motorola announced that they'd patented it, for 
the very obvious reason that I'd been involved in developing the RAIO 
and was upset that Motorola had patented my work.

In the case of the Motorola patent on DHCP as a whole, whatever that 
is, the WG was never, as far as I can recall, notified that Motorola 
had made this claim.   In the case of the Cisco patent on DHCP as a 
whole, again, the WG was never notified of this claim.   Had the WG 
been notified of either of these claims, I can assure you that I would 
have kicked up a fuss.

In this case, we have a patent on some very obvious technology that in 
no way merits a patent.   We are being asked, as a group, to promote 
this technology.   I am against promoting this technology if 
PacketFront's purpose in acquiring this patent is to charge people 
royalties under some definition of "reasonable."  I am pushing back on 
this in hopes that PacketFront will clarify their intentions.   I 
suspect that they acquired this patent for defensive reasons, and I 
have complete sympathy with that, but if that is the case, I want them 
to change the stated terms to reflect that.   If I don't push back, 
PacketFront has no reason to change their terms, and this creates 
uncertainty for implementors of DHCP: will PacketFront sue me?   Will 
their license terms meet *my* definition of reasonable?

So I'm pushing back.   I hope that PacketFront's intentions are as I 
suspect they are, and that as a result of this pushback they will 
clarify their license terms.   If they do not, I am happy to just let 
the technology go unimplemented - I don't think it's that important.

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 10:17:08 -0500

Ted,

Thanks for the explanation. Some more questions.

> been notified of either of these claims, I can assure you that I would 

Right. Neither I (nor Ralph apparently) knew about it. That's
unfortunate, but may also have to do with failed (or lacking) internal
processes that would have ensured that the WG be notified whenever an
IPR statement is posted on the web site. That is being followed up
separately. 

> their license terms meet *my* definition of reasonable?

Understood. But one thing that I'm also trying to understand, is that
Cisco also has IPR on some other drafts, but has not stated that they
will license for free. (At least that is my understanding. I'm sure
someone will correct me if I have that wrong.) E.g., see
draft-ietf-dhc-agentopt-radius-03.txt, a document the WG has
recommended advancement of.  I think it would be helpful to understand
how the situation differs in this case.

> the technology go unimplemented - I don't think it's that important.

That is certainly a position you (and the WG as a whole - if this is
the direction it wants to go in) is free to take.

Thomas

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 10:25:57 -0500

For completeness and to correct inaccuracies in previous messages in this
thread about IPR statements relative to DHCP, here is the complete lists of
published IPR statements, from http://www.ietf.org/ipr.html, as returned by
a search on "dhcp" through the IETF Search Engine, http://search.ietf.org:

http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/MOTOROLA-DHCP

http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/MOTOROLA-DHCP-AGENT-OPTIONS

http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-ietf-dhc-server-override.txt

http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/CISCO-8021X.txt

http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/CISCO-raj-dhc-subnet-alloc.txt

http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/PacketFront-IPR.txt
(note that PacketFront has submitted a revised IPR statement about
draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-X.txt, which has not yet appeared on
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.html)

The MOTOROLA-DHCP-AGENT-OPTIONS IPR statement appears to be the only 
statement that includes the text:

   "royalty-free license to all parties implementing the draft, subject to
    reciprocity of the licensed party."

The other statements (including the updated PacketFront statement but not
the old PacketFront-IPR.txt) all include text similar to the text from
section 10.3.1(C) of RFC 2026:

   "any party will be able to obtain the right to implement, use and
    distribute the technology or works when implementing, using or
    distributing technology based upon the specific specification(s)
    under openly specified, reasonable, non-discriminatory terms."

- Ralph

---

From: Mark Stapp <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 10:44:40 -0500

I'd like to speak up in favor of this draft. (That shouldn't be surprising, 
since I'm an author.)

The technique described in the draft seems obvious and non-novel to me. I 
can't imagine that there is intellectual property there, and I'd be happy 
to offer my expert (well, enthusiastic amateur, at least) opinion about 
that to anyone who cares to ask. in DHCP, we've been shipping information 
that identifies clients around since forever, in the mac, client-id, 
host-name, fqdn, and so forth options. someone who thinks they've 
'invented' that should think hard before going after anyone who uses such 
information in DHCP messages.

The merits of the packetfront IP claims aside, I do believe that there will 
be users of relay information that is different from the remote-id and 
circuit-id, or who need information in addition to those suboptions. If a 
standard suboption isn't available, implementors will do just what Bernie 
Volz suggested: they'll pick random suboptions and use them. That seems 
much less desirable to me. We've usually tried, as a group, to allocate 
well-known option and suboption numbers with clearly described data for 
specific purposes. That improves the lives of implementors, vendors, and 
customers. I'd like to see us move forward and do the same here.

years of history with some vendors' IPR practices have given us confidence 
that their policies are defensive, and we have been able to proceed with 
standardization that co-exists with intellectual property. we don't have 
any history with packetfront's IPR claims, unlike those of some other 
vendors. it would be nice if they'd make their intentions more clear.

-- Mark

---

From: Bud Millwood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 17:24:59 +0100

> their license terms meet *my* definition of reasonable?

I don't see why it's unreasonable to ask for IPR statements that guarantee 
royalty-free implementation with reciprocity, in return for promotion of the 
patented technology (as well as the expertise of this group).

IMO, by not requiring a royalty-free implementation guarantee, we're outright 
inviting WG members to start patenting everything they can in order to get 
some kind of insurance against other patent holders. That's not the kind of 
environment I'd like to see this WG in.

- Bud

Bud Millwood
Weird Solutions, Inc.
http://www.weird-solutions.com
tel: +46 8 758 3700
fax: +46 8 758 3687
mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 12:42:48 -0600

> how the situation differs in this case.

I don't think the situation is any different.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 13:19:33 -0600

> I don't think the situation is any different.

To clarify, I don't think that there should be a double standard where 
we hassle PacketFront and Motorola about their IPR terms and don't 
hassle Cisco.   I think that Cisco should be held to the same standard. 
   Are any of the drafts about which Cisco has made IPR claims currently 
in last call?

---

From: John Schnizlein <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 15:36:59 -0500

Clarification of some mis-information on this subject, and a few questions:

At 09:53 AM 2/6/2004, Ted Lemon wrote:

>The Motorola patent on the relay agent information option has the IPR terms I am asking for.   The reason it has those terms is because I raised a big fuss when Motorola announced that they'd patented it, for the very obvious reason that I'd been involved in developing the RAIO and was upset that Motorola had patented my work.

Let us not forget that this stipulation of royalty-free is unusual.
Most IPR statements claim only the typical RAND statement.
What is the reason for suddenly requiring the unusual IPR statement in DHC?

>In the case of the Motorola patent on DHCP as a whole, whatever that is, 

Following the link Ralph posted, the Motorola-DHCP statement 
includes the usual RAND:

http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/MOTOROLA-DHCP
  The message was received February 2, 2001
  From: "Bawel, Paul (HT-EX)" <[email-masked]>

  Motorola, Inc. has applied for one or more patents relating to the 
  DHCP.  In accordance with the intellectual property rights provisions 
  of the IETF Standards process, Motorola hereby affirms that it is 
  willing to make non-exclusive licenses available under fair, reasonable 
  and non-discriminatory terms with respect to any patent it may be 
  awarded on technology related to the DHCP for parties implementing this 
  standard.  In Motorola ‘s view, such terms would include availability 
  of reciprocal licenses to Motorola, termination of licenses for related 
  lawsuits, etc.

>the WG was never, as far as I can recall, notified that Motorola had made this claim.   In the case of the Cisco patent on DHCP as a whole, again, the WG was never notified of this claim.  

There is no such claim as far as I can tell. 
What is the basis of your assertion?
What is the purpose of this assertion?

> Had the WG been notified of either of these claims, I can assure you that I would have kicked up a fuss.
>
>In this case, we have a patent on some very obvious technology that in no way merits a patent.   We are being asked, as a group, to promote this technology.  

Several aspects of the claim on subscriber-id are unusual:
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/PacketFront-IPR.txt
1) the claim was by a company unrelated to the authors, who stated:
   "This document is the result of work done within Cisco Systems."
2) the claim was filed well after the draft was published
3) while the claim failed to include RAND language, it was later
   amended to include this usual statement

Do you want to empower a company unrelated to the authors to block
progress on a specification simply by filing a subjunctive statement:
"that we may obtain intellectual property rights"

> I am against promoting this technology if PacketFront's purpose in acquiring this patent is to charge people royalties under some definition of "reasonable."  I am pushing back on this in hopes that PacketFront will clarify their intentions.   I suspect that they acquired this patent for defensive reasons, and I have complete sympathy with that, but if that is the case, I want them to change the stated terms to reflect that. 

At 02:19 PM 2/6/2004, Ted Lemon wrote:

>To clarify, I don't think that there should be a double standard where we hassle PacketFront and Motorola about their IPR terms and don't hassle Cisco.   I think that Cisco should be held to the same standard.   Are any of the drafts about which Cisco has made IPR claims currently in last call?

I agree that Cisco should be held to the same standard as typical 
for a long time in DHC, and still typical elsewhere. That is RAND.

My impression was that PacketFront changed their statement to 
include RAND, which was not a matter of hassling them.

Why is the IPR surprise and repair from PacketFront considered a reason
to demand a new, unusual standard of zero-royalty from Cisco?

Why is Thomas Narten associating the unusual PacketFront episode with
the usual RAND which Cisco filed on the agentopt-radius document?
Note that there was no surprise in that filing since the original draft
draft-droms-agentopt-8021x-00.txt in Nov 2001 included a RAND 
statement with a not-subjunctive patent declaration.

John

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:08:28 -0600

> What is the reason for suddenly requiring the unusual IPR statement in 

Because the "RAND statement" is insufficient.   If I am distributing 
open-source software, I can't afford to pay you a royalty on the 
offchance that someone might use your patented technique, even if the 
royalty is "reasonable" by some standard.   I don't think it's even 
generally to your advantage to use the RAND terms, because it means 
that your devices can't be supported by open-source software.   I 
suppose it might sell a few extra copies of Network Registrar.

> Following the link Ralph posted, the Motorola-DHCP statement

Yup.   I have no idea to what this statement applies.   I'm no happier 
about it than I am about Cisco's statement, but at this point it's a 
fait accompli, so there's no point in arguing about it.   This IPR 
statement was also never announced to the WG.

> "that we may obtain intellectual property rights"

No.   Unfortunately, the present legal situation is that they can.   If 
you don't like that, contact your congresscritter - don't complain to 
me.

> to demand a new, unusual standard of zero-royalty from Cisco?

If you were to read the actual messages in the thread to which you were 
responding, you would already know the answer to this question.

> statement with a not-subjunctive patent declaration.

Putting an IPR statement at the bottom of an obscure draft that defines 
something very simple and obvious, that nobody would ever expect 
anybody to patent, isn't sufficient.   If you are claiming a patent on 
something, you should say so explicitly when you announce the draft, or 
when, subsequent to announcing the draft, you decide to add the IPR 
statement.   It has apparently become our collective job to read the 
IPR statement at the bottom of every copy of every draft that goes by 
to make sure there's no stealth patent claim, but tragically I wasn't 
aware of this until today.   Normally, I read drafts for technical 
issues, not for legal issues.   :'(

---

From: Kim Kinnear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 16:54:45 -0500

Ted,

You said:

>Putting an IPR statement at the bottom of an obscure draft that defines something very simple and obvious, that nobody would ever expect anybody to patent, isn't sufficient.   If you are claiming a patent on something, you should say so explicitly when you announce the draft, or when, subsequent to announcing the draft, you decide to add the IPR statement.   It has apparently become our collective job to read the IPR statement at the bottom of every copy of every draft that goes by to make sure there's no stealth patent claim, but tragically I wasn't aware of this until today.   Normally, I read drafts for technical issues, not for legal issues.   :'(

Stealth patent claim?  Its in the draft precisely so it isn't
stealth, for goodness sake!

And, frankly, folks, it is not a big deal.  Nobody is dumb enough
to charge royalties.  Don't be naive.  If any company *made* it a
big deal by charging $$, all of the goodwill they get from their
customers for working with the IETF would be out the window.  It
would be a major black eye from a marketing standpoint.  Why
would anyone work with the IETF at all?  For the good of mankind?
Well, sure, that's why we do it -- but why does my boss let me?
Because it *is* good for the industry and because our customers
know it and our customers appreciate standards based solutions.

Anyone who would invest time with the IETF and then blow it all
away by charging royalty $$ would deserve the black eye they'd
get from it.   This isn't a big deal, and I don't know why people
are trying to make it so.  Talk to a marketing person about it,
why don't you.

I'm not saying that someone won't file a patent and hold us all
up about it for big $$$ -- I'm saying that they won't work with
the IETF to any great degree and then do that.

-------- A slightly different issue ----------------------

Anyway, Ted, your personal issues on royalty-free as opposed to
the more normal wording is, in practice, going to create more
problems than it solves in the DHC WG.  You should take this up
with the overall IETF, and get the policy changed, if you want to
(though I believe it isn't necessary)  

But if you filibuster every non-zero royalty IPR, then here is
what can happen...

I have submitted a patent for some technology (the
server-id-override stuff) that I thought was pretty unique, for
two reasons:

        1.  So that someone else doesn't patent it and force me
        to not use it (since I can't assume they will do the
        "reasonable and not ..." approach).

        2.  I get something slightly more than token $$ from my
        company.

If you think I need the $$ enough for #2 to the sole reason,
you've never worked with a patent lawyer, believe you me!  Well,
I also get a plaque someday.  Wow!

But, while my company has never, to my knowledge, asked for any $
for any of the IETF patents/IPR's we've got, I can't personally
force them to make a patent that I seek be a guaranteed zero $
patent.

So, when I write a draft about new technology, I have two
choices.  I can file the patent first, so that we can all use it
(since I actually trust my company to continue to do what they've
always done in this regard, for the reasons I expressed above),
or I can skip it and just submit the draft.  Of course, the next
fellow who may write that patent may well not have the same
interests that we do in this, and then *none* of us get to use
it.

If I think you will prevent the draft from moving forward, then I
may skip the patent.  And the other guy may not even tell us
about their patent(s) until after we've all started using the
technology and become dependent on it.

Is this the choice you want me to make?  Seriously?

Thanks for listening -- Kim

---

From: Mark Stapp <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:02:04 -0500

this is an ietf-wide issue, and this is the wrong forum for it. the ietf 
has had a consistent expectation, and that's what companies have met. it 
doesn't make sense to me to try to establish a different expectation in 
this one working group. if you want to change the way that the ietf handles 
IP (Intellectual Property, I mean, not the other thing) and IP licensing, 
more power to you and godspeed. take your issue to the proper forum - take 
it to the IPR WG, for example, or to the IAB. it doesn't make sense to me 
to complain that the ietf expectation is wrong, and that the ietf wg that's 
working on the issue is also wrong, and so the only way to get the policy 
to be what you want is to make some other wg do something different from 
the ietf as a whole.

the tone of this thread has gotten a little hysterical, it seems to me. 
it's not really the thing to suggest that cisco people are trying to 
compete with you unfairly because they have a bigger legal department than 
nominum does. the cisco people who contribute to this wg are, as you know 
well, committed to doing the right thing.

Let's take the thread back to the specific issue: I objected to the 
initial, vague packetfront IPR statement because I didn't like the 
implication that someone could stop progress in the standards body without 
substantial claims. the vague statement has been amended and brought in 
line with ietf expectations. I'm not aware of any DHC work that has related 
IPR statements that don't meet the ietf's expectations. it may even have 
been a good thing that we've had this blow-up, because it will certainly 
make us more aware of the issues going forward. now that the issue has been 
resolved, I'd like to continue the progress of this draft.

-- Mark

At 03:08 PM 2/6/2004 -0600, Ted Lemon wrote:
>open-source software, I can't afford to pay you a royalty on the offchance 
>that someone might use your patented technique, even if the royalty is 
>"reasonable" by some standard.   I don't think it's even generally to your 
>advantage to use the RAND terms, because it means that your devices can't 
>be supported by open-source software.   I suppose it might sell a few 
>extra copies of Network Registrar.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 16:44:29 -0600

> Is this the choice you want me to make?  Seriously?

I am pretty sure that it doesn't matter which of these two avenues you 
pursue, as long as you publish the draft before the stealth patent is 
filed.   I am not arguing that people shouldn't do defensive patents.   
I am arguing that this wg should not advance drafts that have patent 
terms that could be used to prevent the distribution of open source 
software or that could be damaging to companies that have no patent 
portfolio for cross-licensing.

I am trying to be consistent with regard to various drafts that are 
under consideration by the wg - it is not at all my intention to say 
that any of the companies who have IP interests in these drafts 
actually have any bad intentions, and indeed we have a long history 
that suggest otherwise, at least in the case of Cisco (maybe in the 
case of PacketFront as well, but I'd never heard of them until this 
came up).

It is not even my motivation to defend Nominum from some imagined 
future problem like this - Nominum is a commercial entity, not an 
individual open source developer.   So I'm speaking with my Ted hat on, 
not my Nominum hat (indeed, I think the folks at Nominum would be quite 
dismayed if I claimed to represent Nominum's opinions here!).

It is my right as a member of the WG to make this argument against a 
draft.   It is the right of other members of the WG to agree with me, 
or to disagree with me.   It is Ralph's job to decide whether or not 
there's consensus to advance the draft.   We are all doing our jobs 
here; there's no need to get emotional about this.

Having said that, I must apologize for overstepping the bounds of my 
job as a WG participant.   It was pointed out to me that my position 
toward PacketFront was inconsistent with my position toward Cisco.   In 
the process of trying to establish some consistency, I responded in a 
very defensive way to John, and said some things about the 
circumstances of the release of the Cisco 802.1x suboption draft which 
I do not know to be true, based solely on my admittedly poor memory.   
I also said something that for some readers seemed to imply that I 
thought Cisco was planning something nefarious.   This is not what I 
meant - I was just explaining the logical reasoning behind preferring 
"zero royalty" to "reasonable" in an IPR statement.

I am sorry for having gone overboard in my response to John, and I'm 
particularly sorry for any offense I may have caused to the folks at 
Cisco, many of whom I have worked with for over a decade in various 
corporate incarnations, and all of whom, including John, I hold in very 
high esteem.   It's been a privilege working with all of you lo these 
many years, and I absolutely hate feeling like I'm at odds with you.

I am not going to withdraw my argument for not advancing the 
subscriber-id draft, because I believe it is correct, and within the 
purview of this wg.   If Ralph determines that I'm the lone wolf here, 
I will respect the wg's decision.   I encourage other members of the WG 
to make their wishes known, whether they agree with me or disagree with 
me, but I hope that despite my own example we will not get into a long 
flamewar on the pros and cons of software patents.   We are all 
reasonable people here, and have been at IETF long enough to know that 
we are not going to convert each other.

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 16:15:04 -0700 (MST)

> From: Kim Kinnear <[email-masked]>

> ...

  - "Reasonable" terms are in the eye of the beholder.  

  - making money from license fees is not the only reason to get a
     patent.  Preventing other implementations is at least as common a
     reason for filing as fees.  The IP vultures that pick over the bones
     of dead companies are most likely to try to make money from fees.

  - goodwill from customers through working with the IETF doesn't
     increase the price of the stock or ship product.

  - organizations have varying motives for paying their employees
     to participate in the IETF.  Getting IETF gold stars is rarely a
     major concern.

> are trying to make it so.  Talk to a marketing person about it,

I have no idea whether the technical issue in this case is a big deal.
It does seem to me that the precedent proposed of demanding free except
for defensive licenses differs from the official IETF stance after the
earliest IEST/IETF errors, but it is attractive.  "Reasonable and
non-discriminatory" has means one thing to an outfit trying some
embracing and extending but something else to commercial competitors 
as well as people writing open source.

> the IETF to any great degree and then do that.

To avoid opening old, painful, lifethreatening (to the IETF), and
poorly healed wounds, let's not talk in public about the IETF's and
IESG's past "IP" mistakes and the organizations that did just what
you say none would do.  If you can't name any of the cases I'm
thinking about, please ask around in private--but not me.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: "Barr Hibbs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 11:00:51 -0800

Wow!  This sure has been a contentious thread....

I must respectfully disagree with the IETF's position regarding IPR and
state my support for [what I believe to be] Ted's position.

I'm certain that the current IETF policy was constructed after serious and
significant negotiations among the interested parties and truly represents a
compromise that all felt they could live with.  I'm also relatively certain
that some work which is codified in RFCs was initially performed for
commercial rather than altruistic reasons.  The "reasonable and
non-discriminatory" terms of most IPR claims was probably the best language
that a compromise could contain.

However, if I were attempting to either market a commercial product or
distribute an open-source one, I'd be extremely wary of including support
for ANY technology in a product if there were IPR claims for it that
included the "reasonable and non-discriminatory" terms, precisely because I
do not have the deep-pocket resources to defend against claims of patent
infringement or other IPR claims.  That would mean specifically that I would
choose NOT to implement some part of an RFC, even if that omission might
significantly reduce the usefulness of my product.  I suspect that there are
more developers besides Ted and myself that have similar concerns.

This is, agreed, not an issue that the DHC Working Group can solve.  It must
be solved by the IETF for the community as a whole and can easily lead the
unwary down several rat-holes, not the least of which is, "can a vendor
claim RFC-compliance for a product if they have not implemented some portion
of the RFC because they could not reach agreement with an IPR-holder over
license terms?"  We DON'T want this to happen.

Precisely because I don't want IETF to become splintered over IPR claims, I
not only support Ted's contention that the typical license terms are too
vague, I believe that we should NOT advance this draft, and also stop
advancement of any other draft containing technology subject to IPR claims.
Further, I would support withdrawing ANY portion of an RFC that is based on
technology that could conceivably subject to claims by an IPR holder.

--Barr

---

From: Mark Stapp <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:32:11 -0500

where can we go from here? the people who want to stop this draft are 
basically saying, "we will stop any drafts from people who've agreed to 
RAND license their IP, and we will stop any drafts as soon as people other 
than the authors agree to RAND license their IP."

it doesn't seem reasonable to me to expect that each vendor should have to 
meet different IPR expectations in response to the different temperatures 
of all of the individual working groups. the ietf's consistent overall 
expectation allows the standards process to continue in a world where 
intellectual property exists, and allows competing commercial vendors to 
contribute. some people in the wg appear to believe that stopping this 
draft will allow them to make a statement to the ietf which will lead it to 
change its expectations in a way that suits them. as someone whose work has 
become the victim of this energy, I can only ask again that the people who 
object to the ietf's overall expectation address it in the IPR wg.

can Ralph or the ADs offer any guidance about whether this kind of storm 
has blown up in other groups, and about how we should proceed?

-- Mark

---

From: "Bernie Volz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:07:15 -0500

Another point is that these IPR statements don't exactly tell you what the
IP is - and patent lawyers would tell any patent holder that saying any more
is a very bad idea. Patents make multiple claims where the I-D work may be
just one part.

While I am with Ted and Barr that I would prefer that there were no patents
especially on pretty basic stuff (or if there are, that they are "free"), I
also understand why companies take the time and effort to patent things (and
believe me, it isn't cheap in terms of time and money - I've been involved
in several patents).

So, as long as the IPR statements are aligned with the general IETF
guidelines, I don't think we should block forward progress. And, as Mark
(and likely others have) pointed out, if we don't like the IETF guidelines,
we should work to get those changed in the proper IETF forum.

I'd also prefer that IPR warnings are placed on I-Ds/RFCs. That way, we at
least know that the work is likely to be encumbered.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Mark
Stapp
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 3:32 PM
To: Ralph Droms
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] IPR statement related to
draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-X.txt 

-- Mark

---

From: "Barr Hibbs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:08:28 -0800

> From: Mark Stapp
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 12:32
>
...Mark, you've missed my objection:  I was trying to say that while only
the IETF as a whole can address IPR issues (and believe me, NO ONE would
want a situation where every single WG or worse, every RFC had different IPR
terms and conditions) the "reasonable and non-discriminatory" terms may be
very difficult or impossible for some vendors to meet.

While Ted is not personally the owner of the ISC DHCPD implementation,
imagine if he were, and that there were just 3 verified IPR claims against
DHCPD based on patents, trade secrets, copyrights, or other mechanisms.
Let's continue by assuming that each "reasonable" license term called for
the payment of $1 for each copy distributed.  So, $3 per copy, what's the
big deal?  Given that Ted would probably be distributing DHCPD as
open-source freeware initially, with anonymous FTP used for distribution,
that distribution model would have to end and copies distributed for, say,
$3.95 each.

The extra charge is necessary to pay for the entire e-commerce application
required to register downloads, collect money to pay the license holders,
and to build up a reserve to defend himself when one of his customers
illicitly copies the distribution and shares it without license fees flowing
back to the IPR holders.  There is no way, in my opinion, to protect oneself
from every possible threat concerning the use of someone else's IPR when
license terms include such vague (and potentially meaningless) language as
"reasonable and non-discriminatory."

I won't pretend to be an expert on torts, patent and copyright law, or IPR,
but I have been on serveral civil juries deciding breach of contract suits,
nearly all turning on the question of whether one party or the other truly
possessed rights to some property or compensation.  In my limited
experience, unless the holder of some valuable commodity vigorously and
frequently defends their rights, juries (at least in California and New
York) seem overwhelmingly to determine that while they may have had rights
"de jure" their inaction defending those rights resulted in a "de facto"
abandonment of those rights.

So not only does a small vendor have to maintain an e-commerce site and
collect monies to pay IPR license holders in my example, the vendor must
also vigorously seek out and prosecute those who abuse or ignore the terms
of the vendor's license agreement (instituted to protect the IPR holders
among other reasons.)  So that $3.95 download and usage license fee is
probably too small by an order of magnitude.

Imagine if the Free Software Foundation's C/C++ compilers and related tools
were suddenly burdened with license fees, no matter how modest, for a
variety of IPR holders.

> draft will allow them to make a statement to the ietf which will
> lead it to change its expectations in a way that suits them. as someone
> whose work has become the victim of this energy, I can only ask again that
> the people who object to the ietf's overall expectation address it in the
> IPR wg.
>
...you're right, Mark...  there should be only one IPR license agreement for
all uses under the guise of IETF, from building commercial or open-source
products to discussing or teaching the technology, and it should meet nearly
impossible criteria:  (1) it should be generic enough not to limit an IPR
holder's claims as circumstances and technology changes, (2) it should be
specific enough so that no vendor is left struggling to determine exactly
what uses are permitted (including derivative products) or what are the
terms for use, and (3) it needs to offer protection to a vendor if their
products are illicitly copied and distributed (effectively holding them
harmless against IPR license claims for misuse of products based on or
including someone else's protected intellectual property.)

I remember the Chicago meeting, when the Relay Agent Information Option
nearly lost it's support from the working group because of Motorola's IPR
claims.  My memory was a bit faulty, as I had thought that Motorola had
agreed to the same IPR limitations as had all other IPR holders whose
technologies had been used in RFCs.  I'm surprised to learn today that they
were held to a stricter term.  I don't think this is a good idea at all.  I
do think that we need one solution which addresses the concerns raised in
this message exchange, and as much as I don't want to stomp on your work,
which I'm sure was done innocent of any knowledge of using someone else's
IPR, I fully believe that it is in the best interest of all IETF
contributors to resolve the issues Ted raised.

Finally, as far as the much-delayed DHCP server MIB is concerned, you are
completely correct:  I would be thoroughly disingenuous if I applied a
different standard to my contributions than to those of others.  I'm not
going to withdraw the draft until I've learned more about how IBM's patent
on "Network Alert Message Construction" has actually affected SNMP
implementers, but a quick web search turned up several SNMP agent and
manager implementations whose licenses make copyright claims, but none that
even acknowledge the IBM patent.

---

From: "Bernie Volz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:22:54 -0500

Would Ted (or ISC) really be liable for this? Wouldn't the USERS or
COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTORS be the ones liable? Sounds like you have much more
practical experience with this sort of stuff, but it just seems to me that
unless Ted (or ISC) claims that the software is patent free, that's
something for the users/distributors of the freely available software to
contend with?

This won't necessarily prevent Ted (or ISC) from being sued (anyone can be
sued) and likely the patent holder would request an injunction to stop
distribution of the free software.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Barr
Hibbs
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 1:08 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] IPR statement related to
draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-X.txt

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:25:46 -0500

draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-05.txt would be a good document to read.  It
includes specific references to other IPR issues the IETF has dealt with -
as well as providing other guidance for the dhc WG issues.

- Ralph

---

From: "Barr Hibbs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:59:04 -0800

> From: Bernie Volz
> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 19:07
>
> IP is -- and patent lawyers would tell any patent holder that saying any
> more is a very bad idea.  Patents make multiple claims where the I-D work
> may be just one part.
>
...William Shakespeare:  "First, kill all the lawyers."

> While I am with Ted and Barr that I would prefer that there were no
> patents especially on pretty basic stuff....
>
...I definitely regret my choice of words....  My preference is that the
requirements for an IPR claim for technology used in an RFC be clear and
explicit, both in terms of identifying the claimed IP and in specifying the
license terms and conditions.

> guidelines, I don't think we should block forward progress.
>
...while PacketFront's new IPR statement is compatible with IETF guidelines,
unless we understand precisely what part of Mark's draft is claimed by
PacketFront, I don't think we should advance it:  are they claiming
sub-options?  subscriber identifier?  client identifier?  I just don't like
such huge unknowns, especially for something that seems so straightforward.

> least know that the work is likely to be encumbered.
...that is an excellent suggestion

--Barr

---

From: "Barr Hibbs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:12:51 -0800

> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 11:23
>
> COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTORS be the ones liable?
>
...of course I can't speak for all holders of IPR and their attorneys, but
one generally goes after either the most obvious target or the targets with
the deepest pockets in a lawsuit.  Going after Ted for an alleged
infringement in DHCPD would effectively halt all development and author
support of the product, which might be the intent of the legislation.  The
ISC is actually the owner of DHCPD, so attacking them could halt original
distribution and development.  A few large wins over users such as SBC would
also kill off DHCPD pretty effectively, as would a win against FreshMeat for
their RPM packages.

> ... it just seems to me that unless Ted (or ISC) claims that the software
> is patent free, that's something for the users/distributors of the freely
> available software to contend with?
>
...ignorance is no defense in most civil jurisdictions, and while claiming
something is unencumbered when it, in fact, is would be considered
misrepresentation or fraud, being silent doesn't shield anyone either

> distribution of the free software.
we'd all be much the poorer for it if it were to occur

--Barr

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:16:51 -0500

> COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTORS be the ones liable? Sounds like you have much 

Actually, they could hold me, ISC *and* the end-user all separately 
liable.

No, I'm not making this up - it's been tested recently.   If you search 
the Your Rights Online archive on /., you should be able to find a 
reference - I think a case was decided in the past month or two that 
turned on the IP owner's right to sue either the seller of the software 
or the user of the software for infringement.

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:31:44 -0500

draft-ietf-ipr-wg-guidelines-05.txt and two other, related, documents have
just been published (today, coincidentally) as RFCs:

RFC 3667, "IETF Rights in Contributions"
RFC 3668, "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology"
RFC 3669, "Guidelines for Working Groups on Intellectual Property Issues"

- Ralph