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

Re: IBM US Patent #5,148,479


Ran and all,

> Amir,
>
>   If you all claim that work done by others in this WG infringes
> in some manner on some patent claim of yours, then you ARE obligated
> to describe which part of that other work you believe infringes on
> which claim of which specific patent.

I have some concern with a certain Sun patent, specifically 5,371,794, issued
at Dec 6 94 (filed nov 2 93) by Diffie and Aziz. I'm not sure that this patent
does not cover aspects of Skip and Photuris. But I'm also not sure that it
does - I need to study this (I just came across it very recently). I think
Hugo also asked Ashar about it (if not, then we planned to, and I apologize to
Ashar for doing it this way). In my text I just wanted to be frank and not to
hide that single additional company (in addition to RSA) who may have some
direct interest (I'm not sure if IBM has a cross-license with Sun). As the
note by John says in lawyerish, if you don't sue us (for a key management for
IP), we don't sue you.
>
>   The repeated actions of certain IBM employees with regard to patents
> has in fact been obstructive of the WG progress.

This WG? I have some reservations about some actions in some other WGs, but
I'm not aware of anything here. I'll really appreciate elaboration (could be
off list). I"ll try to correct.

> I had hoped that
> there was a real change of heart and that IBM was trying to be
> constructive.  Here is a chance for you all to demonstrate good
> faith efforts to help make progress rather than block progress.

We try. Please understand our difficulties too.

>   The WG chairs both consider the current IBM language to be onerous.
> We propose that IBM place the patent(s) in question in the Public
> Domain as Sun Microsystems has done with its patent regarding SKIP.

Of course this is a simpler solution (if indeed it is implemented properly).
In particular, I would like to be able to get a written declaration
of this `placing of patent in public domain' by Sun (like we offer an official
written statement of our conditions). I can give it to my lawyers as a token
of appreciation :-)

John may consider this request, but I'm sure the request would be more
convincing if you can explain WHAT is onerous. It may be fixable or it may
convince IBM to dedicate to the public. Perry made an excellent point - we
should not force companies to get the official letter if they don't feel OK
with an e-mail declaration. I hope John will be able to fix this as I think
this was our intent. Please identify any more problems.

Best, Amir