As someone who works fr the offending company, I might point
out that the lodged IPR statement does not accurately reference
the draft at all. It talks about section IV and section V.
The current draft has no section IV or section V.
The draft does have sections labelled section 4 and section 5.
Hi Darren,
David has recused himself from this discussion because of any possible
conflict of interest. As you note, the claim statement does not
accurately reflect the sections of the ID, but rather the sections of the
claim statement itself. I am working on getting more information about
Hi Darren,
The disclosure document itself contains a section IV and a section V.
Because I work for the company with the claim, I have recused myself
from chairing the discussion, have stayed out of the discussion, and
have asked Chris to lead the discussion.
David Harrington
[EMAIL
Hi Sam,
Please keep this between us for the moment.
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Sam Hartman wrote:
First, have you looked at the updated IPR disclosure?
Yes. The Cisco lawyer who deals with IPR says that he is confused by it.
He suggests that I ask for a clarification of what is based on
Hi,
OK - I blew it.
My apologies to the Working Group and to David for my obvious problem. I
had meant that to be an update to Sam only.
With sincere apologies,
Chris
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Chris Lonvick wrote:
Hi Sam,
Please keep this between us for the moment.
I agree that Darren is overreacting in words, but maybe not in substance. I
think that a co-chair generally plays some role within his own company, and
can/should steer it away from behavior disruptive to the work of the standards
body that this co-chair is overseeing. I would expect that from
Hi Folks,
I do want to be clear on this subject. Hauwei is well within their rights
to discover something while writing a Working Group document, and then to
claim IPR on that discovery. This has happened in the past which was why
the IETF started writing BCP 79 - currently RFC 3979. The
