As far as I know, you are not an IP lawyer, so don't pretend to be one.
Before making accusations, I would suggest you learn how the IETF (and other
standards organizations) develop their IPR policies.
Carl
----- Original Message -----
From: "todd glassey" <tglassey@earthlink.net>
To: "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com>
Cc: <geopriv@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] IPR on geopriv-arch
> On 10/13/2010 4:35 PM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
>> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
