[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IBM patents on key distribution and authentication
Ran has stated that he will initiate a formal "process" complaint if
any undisclosed patents are inserted into IP-Sec WG Drafts.
I have already initiated a formal "process" complaint with the Chair of
the IESG, of undisclosed patents inserted into Mobile-IP drafts, and am
in the process of completely removing any tainted material.
In this case, Amir and Hugo started a long diatribe on the Mobile-IP
list about authentication, long after we had already adopted a simpler
scheme and finished drafting the authentication sections. After much
discussion, they got many in the WG to agree to change to their
technique of challenge/response, rather than simple keyed-MD5, for
authentication.
At no time did they disclose their Intellectual Property interest to
the mailing list.
At IETF in Toronto on Monday, after prompting from Ran, I asked Kannan
to ask Amir and Hugo about any I-P rights. I understand that Kannan
spoke with them before the WG meeting began. During their presentations
at Mobile-IP, they still did not disclose their I-P interest before
beginning, and did not disclose at any time during the presentation.
Only after the meeting was over did they admit to Kannan in my presence
that there might be I-P rights included.
Nor is this the first problem from the _same_ IBM lab with regard to
Mobile-IP. Last March, after many months of discussion, Charlie Perkins
disclosed that he had patented one of the ideas he had been pushing
during the WG discussion. At that time, I was willing to let it slide,
since our I-P guidelines were new and recently published.
I certainly expect that Charlie explained the IETF rules to them, and
they claim to be published elsewhere, which means they should know the
similar IEEE, ANSI, et alia, I-P disclosure rules.
A second violation from the same lab does not appear to be coincidental.
Bill.Simpson@um.cc.umich.edu