Subject: [conex] IPR Disclosure: British Telecommunications plc's statement about IPR claimed in draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-04.txt

From: IETF Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 14:56:49 -0800

Dear Matt Mathis, Bob J. Briscoe:

 An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "Congestion
Exposure (ConEx) Concepts and Abstract Mechanism" (draft-ietf-conex-abstract-
mech) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2012-11-22 and has been posted on
the "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures"
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1922/). The title of the IPR disclosure is
"British Telecommunications plc's statement about IPR claimed in draft-ietf-
conex-abstract-mech-04.txt."");

The IETF Secretariat

---

From: Matt Mathis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 15:35:28 -0800

(-IETF wide and secretariat lists)

Bob, without a licencing statement, this IPR disclosure essentially kills
ConEx.....   Why should anybody in the IETF contribute free consulting to a
technology which BT claims to own, and can at any time in the future charge
what ever it pleases?  Why should anybody in any of the OS communities do
the same?

Random Cisco statements say something like:

The reasonable non-discriminatory terms are:

If this standard is adopted, Cisco will not assert any patents owned or
controlled by Cisco against
any party for making, using, selling, importing or offering for sale a
product that implements the
standard, provided, however that Cisco retains the right to assert its
patents (including the right
to claim past royalties) against any party that asserts a patent it owns or
controls (either
directly or indirectly) against Cisco or any of Cisco's affiliates or
successors in title or against
any products of Cisco or any products of any of Cisco's affiliates either
alone or in combination
with other products; and Cisco retains the right to assert its patents
against any product or
portion thereof that is not necessary for compliance with the standard.

I hope such language is on its way.

When was the patent application first submitted?

Thanks,
--MM--
The best way to predict the future is to create it.  - Alan Kay

Privacy matters!  We know from recent events that people are using our
services to speak in defiance of unjust governments.   We treat privacy and
security as matters of life and death, because for some users, they are.

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 07:41:32 +0100

and the last one (for now at least)

-------- Mensaje original --------
Asunto: 	IPR Disclosure: British Telecommunications plc's statement 
about IPR claimed in draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-04.txt
Fecha: 	Tue, 04 Dec 2012 14:56:49 -0800
De: 	IETF Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Para: 	[email-masked], [email-masked]
CC: 	[email-masked], [email-masked], 
[email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], 
[email-masked]

The IETF Secretariat

---

From: Bob Briscoe <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 10:02:38 +0000

Marcelo and the ConEx list (including authors of affected drafts),

All these emails relate to the same screwed up IPR disclosure, which 
was actually meant to be good news.

This disclosure has been screwed up - our IPR dept sent text to the 
IETF IPR people by email, who must have then transcribed it wrongly 
into the form - omitting the actual licensing text sent by BT's lawyer.

It was intended to offer a royalty-free license under terms unchanged 
from the original IPR declaration for re-ECN 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/651/>, which this declaration was 
meant to update solely by adding more drafts and more patents.

I have asked for the omitted license text to be added urgently.

I have been asking for an update to this declaration since March 2011 
(!!!). It has been frustrating for me, because I couldn't say in 
advance what terms would be applied in the updated declaration, 
because the lawyers (rightly) require that only they can state BT's 
licensing terms.

It has taken this long because the IETF IPR process first required 
each draft to be declared individually, then when the IETF admitted 
that all the drafts could be on one form, the form couldn't handle 
the number of drafts, so the tools team had to modify the form software.

Although I never expected it to take this long, I kept everyone 
informed about this:
* to the ConEx list and in my presentations during the ConEx BoFs (2010)
* to the ConEx chairs and concepts-uses authors in response to a 
question from Nandita when concepts uses went to the IESG (26 Mar 2012)

Bob

At 06:41 05/12/2012, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
>Asunto:         IPR Disclosure: British Telecommunications plc's 
>statement about IPR claimed in draft-ietf-conex-abstract-mech-04.txt
>[email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>conex mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/conex

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design

---

From: Bob Briscoe <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 10:11:04 +0000

Matt,

See my email to the ConEx list.
This was an administrative screw up - omitting the actual license text.

Bob

At 23:35 04/12/2012, Matt Mathis wrote:
>Bob, without a licencing statement, this IPR disclosure essentially 
>kills ConEx.....   Why should anybody in the IETF contribute free 
>consulting to a technology which BT claims to own, and can at any 
>time in the future charge what ever it pleases?  Why should anybody 
>in any of the OS communities do the same?
>
>If this standard is adopted, Cisco will not assert any patents owned 
>or controlled by Cisco against
>any party for making, using, selling, importing or offering for sale 
>a product that implements the
>standard, provided, however that Cisco retains the right to assert 
>its patents (including the right
>to claim past royalties) against any party that asserts a patent it 
>owns or controls (either
>directly or indirectly) against Cisco or any of Cisco's affiliates 
>or successors in title or against
>any products of Cisco or any products of any of Cisco's affiliates 
>either alone or in combination
>with other products; and Cisco retains the right to assert its 
>patents against any product or
>Privacy matters!  We know from recent events that people are using 
>our services to speak in defiance of unjust governments.   We treat 
>privacy and security as matters of life and death, because for some 
>users, they are.
>
>
>On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 2:56 PM, IETF Secretariat 
><<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]> wrote:
> >
> (<https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1922/>https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1922/). 
> The title of the IPR disclosure is