> Todd,
>
> If you believe there are IPR concerns related to active GEOPRIV
> documents, the Note Well statement (by reference to RFC 3979) says that
> you must disclose them according to the directions here:
> <http://www.ietf.org/ipr-instructions>
I have already filed numerous instances of claims in the IPR Area
Richard for GEOPRIOV and Location Based Services - considering I
invented specifically them 13 years ago.
By the way - I have a new control protocol for SMART MUNITIONS including
those which are used in some of the Ballistic Sensor Fused Munitions (of
which GPS Guided devices are just one instance).
>
> While I see from the IPR tracker that you are well familiar with this
> process, I do not see any filings from you with regard to this
> particular document.
There is NO contractual practice the IETF can require of someone who is
not formally a member of the IETF with regard to these filings. In fact
the ONLY people the term MUST can possibly pertain to are
1) Parties submitting data to the IETF for republication; or
2) Members of the IETF who are contractually tied to NoteWell and the
other IPR rules.
So... anytime you want to force those words of yours into stone and we
can address the issues of #1 or #2 then fine. The idea that after an
initial disclosure of the existence of IPR pertaining to a specific
subject constitutes a fraud on the IETF's part in
A) Requiring permanent diligence to meet the demand term MUST per your
analysis
B) Having permanent legal staff also on call to address these issues
and to manage the incompetence of the IETF and its members.
By the way the failure of the IETF representative of any entity to
convey legal notices to their own legal department is also a key issue
since most technology companies still hide from what their engineers do
here.
Todd
>
> --Richard
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 13, 2010, at 3:44 PM, todd glassey wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/2010 10:44 AM, James M. Polk wrote:
>>> At 11:05 AM 10/12/2010, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
>>>> <hat type="individual"/>
>>>>
>>>> I am comfortable with this document moving forward. I have looked at
>>>> the Enterasys patents, and it looks to me like they relate to specific
>>>> applications (location-based access control and routing), so that they
>>>> don't intrude on a general location architecture. With regard to the
>>>> Qualcomm disclosure, their reluctance to provide information makes me
>>>> a little nervous, but it still seems like this document is abstract
>>>> enough that it would be useful in spite of IPR claims on some specific
>>>> realizations.
>>>
>>> It's hard to feel comfortable about the unknown.
>>>
>>> James
>>
>> Yes but one thing is certain and that is that this same draft also
>> violates the GEOPRIV IPR notices we already have on file as well so...
>> there are other issues.
>>
>> And FWIW - the next Court date in the first litigation of that patent
>> issue... is tomorrow with the next one being the 9th of November.
>>
>> Todd Glassey
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> --Richard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 12, 2010, at 11:58 AM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <hat type="chair"/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Two IPR disclosures have been filed with regard to draft-ietf-
>>>>> geopriv-arch, one from Qualcomm and one from Enterasys:
>>>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1394/>
>>>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1402/>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Qualcomm disclosure relates to an unpublished US patent
>>>>> application, so no information is available from the USPTO website.
>>>>> Robert and I have asked Qualcomm for further technical details, but
>>>>> have not received any. The Enterasys disclosure relates to three
>>>>> issued patents.
>>>>>
>>>>> The question for the group is whether the WG is comfortable moving
>>>>> these documents forward given these IPR disclosures. If you have
>>>>> thoughts on this question, please send them to the list no later
>>>>> than Monday, 18 Oct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> --Richard
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Geopriv mailing list
>>>>> Geopriv@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Geopriv mailing list
>>>> Geopriv@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Geopriv mailing list
>>> Geopriv@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3192 - Release Date:
>>> 10/11/10 23:34:00
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> //-----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
>> If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the
>> addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose or take any action based
>> on this message or any information herein. If you have received this
>> message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
>> and delete this message.
>>
>> Thank you for your cooperation.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Geopriv mailing list
>> Geopriv@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3195 - Release Date: 10/13/10 11:34:00
>
--
//-----------------------------------------------------------------
This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the
addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose or take any action based
on this message or any information herein. If you have received this
message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete this message.
Thank you for your cooperation.
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
