infringe our standards work. So far, at least in the GIS, we are fortunate
that there is so much publicly available prior art from projects in the
1970's and 1980's. Further, much of the early work in the OGC - such as in
web mapping - predates by at least a couple of years most of the web mapping
related patents.
Which brings me to a perhaps valuable fact: Back in 2003, the OGC Members
began development of a geo digital rights management reference model. This
work culminated in the OGC (and soon ISO) approving the GeoRM Reference
Model. This approval occurred in 2006. As the GeoPriv Arch document, the GRM
defines a model, terminology, use cases, and so forth for rights management
of location content. If one reads this document, there are considerable
similarities between the GeoPriv and OGC documents. Might be interesting to
check consistent terminology :-)
http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/as/geodrmrm
My observation - and why I am happy for this excellent document to proceed -
is that the GeoPriv Arch defines a model and is technology/implementation
agnostic.
That said, now that I have actually read the document, I will pass this
document to the OGC rights management community for comment.
Cheers
Carl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Winterbottom, James" <James.Winterbottom@andrew.com>
To: "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com>; <geopriv@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] IPR on geopriv-arch
>I agree Richard, and I am happy for this document to proceed.
>
> Cheers
> James
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On
>> Behalf
>> Of Richard L. Barnes
>> Sent: Wednesday, 13 October 2010 3:06 AM
>> To: geopriv@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] IPR on geopriv-arch
>>
>> <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.
>>
>> --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
>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
