Robert,Summary, I think you're not correct in characterizing the current disclosure as "royalty-bearing".
I don't see how the license you quoted is very different from the one published with the recent (corrected) IPR disclosure (http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/juniper-ipr-draft-ietf-idr-flow-spec-03.txt ):
"If this standard is adopted, Juniper will not assert any patents owned or controlled by Juniper against any party for making, using, selling, importing or offering for sale a product that implements the standard, provided, however that Juniper retains the right to assert its patents (including the right to claim past royalties) against any party that asserts a patent it owns or controls (either directly or indirectly) against Juniper or any of Juniper's affiliates or successors in title or against any products of Juniper or any products of any of Juniper's affiliates either alone or in combination with other products; and Juniper retains the right to assert its patents against any product or portion thereof that is not necessary for compliance with the standard."
There are some differences between this and the license you quote, and I'm not a lawyer so prefer to avoid a detailed analysis of those differences, but to a first approximation the above paragraph is the same as what you mention: a royality-free licence containing protection against patent litigation. The following paragraph does mention royalties:
"Royalty-bearing licenses will be available to anyone who prefers that option."
but it's only provided as an option for those who don't choose the mutually assured destruction version provided by the first paragraph. This is an *expansion* of the options available, not a reduction. The license you quote below is substantially the same as the first paragraph quoted above, but omits the expansion of options provided by the second paragraph quoted above. (I don't think this makes any real difference; the patent holder can choose to offer a royalty-bearing license whether or not that is explicitly stated in the IPR disclosure.)
I would have thought this to be obvious, but the mere presence of the string "royalty-bearing" in the IPR statement is absolutely not a reason to characterize the overall terms as royalty-bearing rather than royalty-free. For this reason, I think the search results you cite, far from being "self explanatory", are basically meaningless.
Perhaps it was a marketing error not to use the string "royalty-free" in the IPR statement.
--John On Mar 6, 2009, at 11:06 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Hi John,IMO the (corrected) licensing terms that were disclosed are nearly the least repulsive possible, and probably the least repulsive that it's reasonable to expect.Just FYI I examined few other IPR disclosures and apparently there are many more offering royality-free licences yet containing protection against patent litigations. They apparently can go together just fine.Example:Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Google hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this License) patent license for patents necessarily infringed by implementation (in whole or in part) of this specification. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the implementation of the specification constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses for the specification granted to You under this License shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.Btw: Results 1-10 of about 2,150 for "royalty-free" AND IPR. (0.14 seconds)Results 1-10 of about 198 for "royalty-bearing" AND IPR. (0.24 seconds)SRC: http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/ietf The query results are self explanatory :). Cheers, R.