Subject: [nemo] Re: IPRs on base solution

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:30:37 +0100

Let me me bring back this thread on IPR, now that more info on
actual claims is available.

Erik Nordmark wrote:
> - Is there any information what the claimed IPR might actually cover?
> 
I used US2003/0117965A1 and US6636498B1 that I'll call A and B in the
following.  I have some interpretations below, but those are of course
not of a professional lawyer, disclaimers apply.

Both A and B have claims relating to the way NEMO basic (non-RO)
works:

B is on methods for Mobile IPv4 while A is for Mobile IPv6 (B has some
text on an MR-specific FA while B obviously hasn't).

Both A and B claim that HA will modify its routing table and binding
cache or mobility binding table upon reception of BU or RReq.

B claims that, in addition to the CoA in the RReq, there might be
prefixes in the RReq.  A only claims there's a CoA in the BU.

Both A and B claim that dynamic routing information exchanges might
happen between MR and HA, through the bidir tunnel, whenever MR changes CoA.

A mentions nested mobile networks while B doesn't.

One thing in the NEMO base draft that is not covered by A and B is
probably the "explicit prefix len" mode.  Another thing that is not
covered neither by A nor by B is probably the HA learning host-based
routes via ICMP redirects (this particular aspect is not in the NEMO
base WG item but it is in some nemo related draft).  Probably those two
details are very narrow with respect to the overall nemo workings, or
I'd rather say that both A and B have very wide claims.

If one wants to go further, other means to do network mobility with
Mobile IPv6 and bidir tunnel are always possible, such that they
don't fall under A and B's claims; for example one might want to avoid
modifying the routing table.

Also, in a different context and with different purposes, one might be
able to identify relevant prior art preceding A's filing date (and
probably a bit of B's too) and challenge the patents directly, instead
of fighting over the licensing scheme (I'm not sure which approach is
cheaper).  That's very easy: consider that A and B are filed and
published at different dates, so they are surely preceding one another
somehow and neither one mentions the other.

> This is useful for the WG if there is a desire to proceed even though
>  there is IPR, something which the WG is free to choose, or try to 
> work around the IPR.

Right.

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:30:37 +0100

Right.

Alex