On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Michael Krause wrote:
> Spec for free or spec for a price - neither grants anyone rights to any
> IP contained within the specifications or on the technologies that
> surround the specification. The change in spec cost, while clearly
> unfortunate, has no impact on the IP rights. IP rights are defined by
> the IBTA membership agreement (just like they are for PCI and any number
> of other technologies used within the industry). If you want to
> implement a technology, then you have to be a member of the appropriate
> organization and agree to the same industry-wide terms that others do.
> Hence, this problem is not IB-specific but a fact of life within the
> industry.
funny, I don't recall these problems with Ethernet.
IEEE requires RAND licensing by companies; it does not license the technology to individuals. So the same problems exist for Ethernet as it does for IB as it does for many technologies.
> Again, this is true of many technologies not just IB. For example, if a
> company has patents on PCI Express and someone implements a device /
> chipset / whatever and they are not part of the PCI-SIG, then they can
> be subject to different terms than someone who is a member of the
> PCI-SIG. In both cases, the access to specs, etc. has nothing to do
> with IP licensing.
sorry, I think about protocol software differently than chips. Maybe I'm
thinking incorrectly here.
There are software patents in all of these protocol off-load technologies just like there are hardware patents. As people start to use embedded processors for various communication workloads, the line between software and hardware patents will blur even further.
Mike
_______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
