Subject: RE: [midcom] pre-midcom candidates - On IPR

From: Steve Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 17:33:35 -0000

This is the email I sent to Melinda on the topic of IPR.

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Davies 
Sent: 12 October 2001 20:57
To: Melinda Shore
Cc: Steve Davies; Barry Scott; Pete Cordell
Subject: RE: ID Submission - draft-davies-fw-nat-traversal-01.txt

Melinda,

In making this second contribution, draft-davies-fw-nat-traversal-01.txt,
Ridgeway stands by the declaration made to the IETF on 21st March, 2001,
regarding intellectual property claims. 

Ridgeway has applied for one or more patents on the technology related to
the traversal of firewalls and NATs. To date no patents have been awarded to
Ridgeway.

Ridgeway remains willing to disclose any patents awarded in this area and to
license them under openly specified, fair and non-discriminatory terms
should one of our patents be required to implement any standard associated
with the traversal of firewalls and NATs.

I hope this clarifies our position and the status of our claims, but please
ask if you need further information.

Kindest regards

Steve 

Steve Davies
Chief Technical Officer
Ridgeway Systems and Software
Email: mailto:[email-masked] 
Web:  www.ridgewaysystems.com
Tel W: +44 (0)118 938 1114
Tel H: +44 (0)1285 770979 

-----Original Message-----
From: Melinda Shore [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 19 November 2001 19:18
To: Christian Huitema; Steve Davies; [email-masked]
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