Re: [Idr] Posting of IPR Disclosure for draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec

["John G. Scudder" <jgs at juniper.net>]

One further point:

On Feb 12, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Point 2 is where the applicability issue comes in.  I have seen  
> lawyers argue that as long as there is some context way of  
> implementing the spec that can be implemented without the claim they  
> are asserting, then the claim is not "necessary for compliance with  
> the specification.  In that case, the reservation is very dangerous.

My previous comment that Juniper has no hidden agenda with respect to  
IPR disclosures is the real answer to this.

However, I'll also point out that even if a company *was* hatching the  
dastardly plan you describe above, they would seem awfully foolish to  
publish a notice that "<company> is the owner of US Patent <foo>  
relating to the subject matter of <draft>".  If I were a judge (we can  
all thank our lucky stars I'm not) I would look askance if the company  
then tried to tell me that patent <foo> is *not* necessary for  
compliance with <draft>.  ("Tell me, counselor -- what *did* you mean  
by 'relating to the subject matter of'"?)

Regards,

--John