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>
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.
--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 The Qualcomm disclosure relates to an unpublished US patent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
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
