Regards
James Winterbottom
Global Product Manager
CommScope GeoLENs
IP Location Product Portfolio
Email: james.winterbottom@commscope.com
Phone: +61-2-42-212938
Mobile: +61-447-773-560
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Gonell, Fabian
> Sent: Friday, 17 June 2011 6:01 AM
> To: John C Klensin; Alan Clark
> Cc: Resnick, Pete; geopriv@ietf.org; 'WG Chairs'
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Fwd: IPR Disclosure: Qualcomm Incorporated's
> Statement about IPR related to RFC 4119
>
> Pete Resnick brought this mailing list to my attention and I have
> subscribed to it to respond to the recent discussion regarding Qualcomm's
> IPR disclosure related to RFC 4119. I will continue to subscribe through
> the end of June 2011 to respond to any further inquiries on this matter.
> Thereafter, I can be reached at the email address from which I sent this
> message.
>
> The disclosure to RFC 4119 was made in error, and will be withdrawn
> shortly. The particular patent was identified as one that might be
> necessarily infringed by Implementing Technology if one or more drafts
> submitted in 2010 and 2011 by M. Thomson of Andrew Corporation were
> developed into an RFC. RFC 4119 was mistakenly identified as a relevant
> document in our internal disclosure processes and that error was not
> caught before the disclosure was made. We apologize for the confusion.
>
> That said, much of the recent discussion appears to be based on
> misunderstandings of the applicable IETF rules. The applicable IETF rules
> are found in RFC 3979. Disclosure rules are in section 6 of that document.
> Those participating in or following the recent discussion should note the
> following three points.
>
> First, RFC 3979 requires disclosures based on the personal knowledge of
> the participants. See Section 6.1.2:
>
> Any *individual* participating in an IETF discussion who *reasonably
> and
> personally knows* of IPR meeting the conditions of Section 6.6 which
> the individual believes Covers or may ultimately Cover a Contribution
> made by another person, or which such IETF participant reasonably and
> personally knows his or her employer or sponsor may assert against
> Implementing Technologies based on such Contribution, must make a
> disclosure in accordance with this Section 6. (emphasis added)
>
> Second, RFC 3979 specifically and unequivocally states that there is no
> requirement to perform a patent search. See Section 1.l. (stating that
> the term "reasonably and personally known" "should not be interpreted as
> requiring the IETF Contributor or participant (or his or her represented
> organization, if any) to perform a patent search to find applicable IPR").
>
> Third, RFC 3979 specifically contemplates and acknowledges that
> disclosures made after an RFC is published may be timely. See Section
> 6.2.2:
>
> If a participant first learns of IPR that meets the conditions of
> Section 6.6 in a Contribution by another party, for example a new
> patent application or *the discovery of a relevant patent in a patent
> portfolio, after the Contribution was published in an Internet-Draft
> or RFC,* a disclosure must be made as soon as reasonably possible
> after the IPR becomes reasonably and personally known to the
> participant. (emphasis added)
>
> Given the plain text of RFC 3979, the insinuations of wrongdoing in the
> recent discussion are ill founded. I have spoken with Randall Gellens,
> who was one of the WG co-chairs during the relevant time period, and he
> did not know anything about the patent at issue. That is not surprising,
> because the patent was developed by a subsidiary company in which Randall
> did not work at a time when such subsidiary was an independent company not
> yet owned by Qualcomm. Further, Randall's product development
> responsibilities at Qualcomm did not involve position location. We also
> reached out to Ted Hardie, who was Applications Area Director and who no
> longer works at Qualcomm, and confirmed that he also knew nothing about
> the particular patent. Ted also did not work in the subsidiary that owned
> the patent, and in any event the patent was developed years before Ted
> joined Qualcomm.
>
> In light of these facts, the suggestion that this situation was "pretty
> darn close" to one in which the *author* of a draft document is also the
> *named inventor* of a patent disclosed after an RFC was published is
> completely erroneous and, frankly, inappropriate. Nor was this a situation
> in any way analogous to what the FTC alleged with respect to Rambus, a
> matter in which Rambus was alleged to have *refused* to give a RAND
> commitment while Qualcomm's (erroneous) disclosure to RFC 4119 explicitly
> included a RAND commitment to offer licenses. Randall and Ted have given
> years of service to the IETF in general and to this WG in particular.
> They deserve better than to have their good names casually smeared on this
> mailing list.
>
> Fabian Gonell
> QUALCOMM Incorporated
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of John C Klensin
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 4:59 PM
> To: Alan Clark
> Cc: Resnick, Pete; geopriv@ietf.org; 'WG Chairs'
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Fwd: IPR Disclosure: Qualcomm Incorporated's
> Statement about IPR related to RFC 4119
>
> Alan,
>
> I'm not defending Qualcomm - I don't know the facts of this
> matter and have no opinion on whether I would defend them if I
> did. However... (inline below)....
>
> --On Wednesday, June 15, 2011 17:07 -0400 Alan Clark
> <alan.d.clark@telchemy.com> wrote:
>
> > Pete
> >
> > Many large companies have substantial patent portfolios and
> > could avoid the disclosure requirements of standards
> > organizations if they could claim that the participants in
> > standards activities were not personally aware of patents that
> > may affect standards under development. IMHO if this were
> > allowed to happen then patent disclosure requirements become
> > completely ineffective.
> >...
>
> Some others have done exactly that before. The rule that you
> prefer is certainly a possible one (but see below). However,
> the IETF's various IPR WGs considered the issue very carefully
> and arrived at the "personal knowledge" requirement, so, in
> commenting about personal knowledge, Pete is merely reflecting
> the way our rules are written.
>
> IANAL, but I understand that there is some case law in which
> judges have taken a dim view of companies organizing themselves
> in ways that seem to have the sole purposes of evading the
> requirements of SDOs or of surfacing submarine patents at times
> that give them unreasonable or unfair advantages.
>
> > In my opinion - any company participating in any standards
> > activity should either:
> >
> > (i) Establish an internal process by which they monitor the
> > standards activities in which they participate and constantly
> > review their patent database for potential applicability
> > (relatively easy given that everything is electronic). If
> > they find a matching patent or application related to an
> > in-process standards activity they should disclose it and
> > state the applicable licensing terms - if the standards
> > activity has already completed then they should waive their
> > right to enforce the patent with reference to the standard.
>
> > (ii) Make a blanket statement to the standards body that they
> > were willing to make licenses available royalty-free with the
> > condition of reciprocity. This avoids the need to track
> > anything and preserves some ability to use patents defensively.
>
> Unfortunately, there is a third possibility, one that companies
> take when they perceive the requirements of a particular SDO or
> consortium are too expensive or otherwise burdensome: they drop
> out and prohibit their employees and others over whom they have
> control from participating. While I think many of us would
> prefer one of the two choices you outline, the possibility of
> the third should continue to make us cautious about too-sweeping
> rules.
>
> john
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
