Note that the above Whitespace DB discovery patent application includes a reference to a companion Whitespace *protocol* discovery application:
"White space database protocol discovery is further described with reference to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/339,036 filed Dec. 28, 2011, which is hereby incorporated by reference herein." Tony On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Don Joslyn <[email protected]> wrote: > Try this link: > > > http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=%22White+Space+database+discovery%22&OS=%22White+Space+database+discovery%22&RS=%22White+Space+database+discovery%22 > > Regards, > Don > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 3:16 AM, Ray Bellis <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> On 21 Aug 2014, at 15:54, Pete Resnick <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > PAWS participants: >> > >> > Somehow an IPR disclosure was filed on the PAWS protocol document for >> which we did not see an announcement: >> > >> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2340/ >> > >> > As far as I can tell from the title (given that the referenced IP is an >> as-yet-unpublished patent), this applies to the database discovery portion >> of the protocol. Since we have removed much of that discussion, we expect >> mostly pre-configuration, and we have yet to (and may never) complete the >> actual database discovery work, I think this may have no effect on folks >> implementing the protocol. But I do need to confirm that the WG is aware of >> this and still thinks it's OK to move forward with the protocol document. >> > >> > If there are any objections to moving forward, I need to hear that >> immediately. >> > >> > However, I would like to hear an overt, "Yes, understood, and it's fine >> to move forward" from some folks who might be implementing the protocol. >> >> I’m unable to find the text of the Nokia application, so it’s difficult >> to assess. >> >> I note that they’ve quoted an application date of 29 April 2013, I’d be >> amazed if there isn’t some prior work relating to database discovery (e.g. >> the OFCOM spec, or ETSI EN 301 598) although that does depend on exactly >> what mechanism it is they’re claiming. >> >> Given the WG's de-emphasis on DB discovery I see no reason to change >> course based on this. >> >> Ray >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paws mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws >> > > > _______________________________________________ > paws mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws > >
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
