Re: Second Last Call: <draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-08.txt> (Sieve Notifica tion Mechanism: SIP MESSAGE) to Proposed Standard

John,

a worry I have with going out with such a massive demand set for this 
IPR code violation is that we'd be encouraging the other IPR behaviour 
we've seen: That of saying nothing.

The current Huawei people who caused this disclosure to be filed deserve 
our praise for doing the Right Thing now, even while the people in the 
past who did not deserve our condemnation.

On one point, however, I'm aligned:

On 01/26/2012 10:31 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> (3) A request to the company involved to remove the reciprocity
> clause from the license stated in the disclosure statement.  As
> a show of good faith, they should agree to derive no benefit
> from the patent other than what praise accrues from having it
> awarded.
Indeed, this reciprocity clause is of the form that I used to complain 
to Cisco's IPR lawyer about Cisco making when I was at Cisco: It asserts 
the right of withdrawal of this license for *any* use of *any* patent 
against Huawei - that means that anyone who dares to depend on this 
license is effectively granting a license to *all* their patents to the 
holder of this patent.

The proper scope of reciprocity clauses is a fertile ground for debate 
(and nearly impossible to hold a debate on, unfortunately), but this 
type is one that I am not happy to see.

                       Harald