Subject: Re: [Roll] IPR ROLL

From: Dan Lang <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:01:00 -0800

Hi Anand:

In response to your item 7, the answer is basically yes.  Some  
entities have IPR statements that merely revoke their licensing  
commitments when sued, leaving open the possibility that those  
entities might not license their essential patents to the suing party  
on *any* terms.  In contrast, Cisco’s statement makes a royalty- 
bearing license to its essential patents available to anyone who  
prefers that option – even if that person has sued Cisco.  The terms  
of that royalty-bearing license would be consistent with our overall  
commitment to license on “reasonable, non-discriminatory terms.”

As a general note to the mailer, I am aware that I have not  
specifically addressed each question that has been directed to me in  
the last few days.  In some cases, this is because I feel that I  
shouldn't inadvertently give you legal advice by further interpreting  
my previous statements.

Best regards,

Dan

Dan Lang
DIrector, Intellectual Property
Cisco Systems, Inc.