Subject: RE: [midcom] pre-midcom candidates - Protocol Name for Davies Proposal

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 15:00:33 -0500

From:  Tom Gray@MITEL on 11/19/2001 03:00 PM

Since the claim is that the Davies proposal is fundamentally the same as that of
the new TURN proposal, wouldn't this issue be also important for it as well.

Melinda Shore <[email-masked]> on 11/19/2001 02:18:08 PM

To:   "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>, "Steve Davies"
      <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
cc:    (bcc: Tom Gray/Kan/Mitel)

Subject:  RE: [midcom] pre-midcom candidates - Protocol Name for Davies
      Proposal

At 09:32 AM 11/19/01 -0800, Christian Huitema wrote:
>On the ridgeway web site, one finds phrases such as "Ridgeway uses
>patent-pending technology to limit H.323 traffic to Ridgeway's
>well-known ports". Is your proposal covered by any of these pending
>patents, and if yes what is your licensing strategy?

Ridgeway posted an intellectual property rights notice against this
some time ago (http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/RIDGEWAY-NAT-TRAVERSAL).
I've written them about this on several occasions and gotten answers,
but the answers have not been posted to the midcom mailing list.  I
think this is somewhat unfortunate, since we are trying to select from
among several proposed protocols and the IETF policy is that a
technology with IPR claims against it will only be preferred against
competing technology when it's clearly superior.

Melinda

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 16:45:01 -0500

>the new TURN proposal, wouldn't this issue be also important for it as well.

Are you asking if Ridgeway is intending to assert that TURN is
using Ridgeway-patented technology?

Melinda