[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

IBM US Patent #5,148,479

Ref:  Note from CIRCJWL AT RHQVM07 (attached)

John Lowe from IBM has just posted a note explaining that there
is *no requirement* for any implementer of the IP key managment
protocol to get a written statement from IBM about the free use of
the above patent in this protocol.

Unfortunately, to non-lawyers, like most of us are, the language
of these notes is somewhat confusing and may appear more complicated
than it really is.

Here I append a letter I sent to John (indented with > ) and his answers
(capital letters). The more "human oriented" language of this letter
can (hopefully) clarify the issue (and get all of us back to work).

Hugo

PS: Perry, notice that the situation is exactly as you "wished"
it to be in the last paragraph of your (attched) note.



 > Date: 20 April 1995, 12:16:57 EDT
 > From: HUGO     at YKTVMV
 > To:   CIRCJWL at RHQVM07
 > cc:   AMIR at YKTVMH
 >
 > Re:   IBM US Patent #5,148,479
 > Ref:  Note from "Perry E. Metzger" (attached)
 >
 > John, attached is a note to IPSEC by Perry Metzger.
 > If I understand correctly your posting to IPSEC, then
 > there is no paperwork *required* for anybody that wants to implement
 > the standard. It is up to individuals or companies to get
 > a written confirmation of the license from IBM,
 > but that is *not* a pre-requisite or requirement. Is that correct?

THAT IS CORRECT.  THE CONFIRMATORY LICENSE IS OPTIONAL; THE GRANT WAS MADE
IN THE POSTING AND PARTIES HAVE IT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT REQUEST CONFIRMATION.

 >
 > Also, would it be fair to say that for any individual, company or organization,
 > that is *not* claiming (now or in the future) any patent rights on the key
 > management standard for Internet, the free license is automatically granted
 > by your posting (without any further action by them) ?

SEE ABOVE ANSWER.

 >
 > Hugo
 >
 > ----------------------------- Note follows ------------------------------
 >
 > To: " " <amir@watson.ibm.com>
 > Cc: ipsec@ans.net
 > Subject: Re: IBM US Patent #5,148,479
 > In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Apr 1995 19:07:47 EDT."
 >              <9504192307.AA23011@gimili.watson.ibm.com>
 > Reply-To: perry@imsi.com
 > X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission
 > Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 21:28:09 -0400
 > From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>
 >
 >
 > " " says:
 > > Perry says,
 > >
 > > > I've already managed to request a copy for my company of the IBM
 > > > document assuring that they will not invoke their patent rights
 > >
 > > Great. Please tell me if this document would have any problem.
 >
 > I'll find out soon, but the real problem I see is that it adds
 > unnecessary and silly paperwork into the process. For instance, if my
 > work gets maintained by a third party, do they then need to get a copy
 > of your document? Lets say that Joe Random Hacker sends me bugfixes --
 > did he need to have a license? Overall, its an unpleasant
 > nuissance. I've requested a copy largely so that I can get it over
 > with.
 >
 > > The patent should be free to you if your company would not claim its
 > > own patents against IBM with respect to our implementations of
 > > IKMP. (So far the only possible exceptions I'm aware of are RSA and
 > > maybe Sun).
 >
 > Actually, I think thats entirely reasonable, but I'd have prefered for
 > you guys to simply have made a public enough declaration on the matter
 > and to have eliminated this buisiness of giving people individual
 > documents at all. (Perhaps you could have given people official copies
 > of the declaration if they wanted it, but thats another story.)
 >
 > Perry
 >
 >Subj: NO SUBJECT