Re: IPR (Was: Re: Comments on draft-bagnulo-multi6dt-hba-00.txt)

Can we leave this topic until this or some other WG faces the
question of formally putting HBA on the standards track?

     Brian


Soliman, Hesham wrote:
>  >  In your previous mail you wrote:
>  > 
>  >    On 15-nov-04, at 16:50, Jari Arkko wrote:
>  >    
>  >    >> PS: BTW CGA IPR holders provide royalty-free licenses 
>  > only for SEND,
>  >    >> can they update their IPR texts on the IETF web for HBAs too?
>  >    
>  >    > FYI: I have asked the Ericsson IPR department to inform the
>  >    > IETF about their licensing conditions regarding the HBA draft
>  >    > and usage in MULTI6.
>  >    
>  >    Shouldn't we try to determine whether the patent even 
>  > applies in the 
>  >    first place?
>  >    
>  > => as the HBA idea is an extension of the CGA one, I can't 
>  > see how the
>  > patent can apply to CGA but not to HBA... No, the problem is real,
>  > but it should very easy to fix with a better wording in the IPR note.
>  > 
> 
> => I think Microsoft also made claims about CGA, so I'm not
> sure if the Ericsson IPR statement alone will be sufficient.
> 
> Hesham
> 
> ===========================================================
> This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
>  of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly
>  prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
>  and delete all copies.
> ===========================================================
> 
> 
>