RE: IETF Patent Licenses are RAND

[Powers Chuck-rxcp20 <Chuck.Powers@motorola.com>]

Interesting - I found two IPR statements on the list from Motorola which were for Royalty-Free terms.

Perhaps over-generalizing is not a good way to characterize the statements on the IETF IPR web site.

chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 2:43 PM
> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> Cc: Keith Moore; ipr-wg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: IETF Patent Licenses are RAND
> 
> 
> > Until my eyes grew dim, I reviewed the long collection of patent
> > licenses on http://www.ietf.org/ipr.  All I saw were RAND or worse.
> > While some IETF members may have a preference for RF patent 
> licensing,
> > clearly that standards organization isn't getting any RF patent 
> > licenses
> > worthy of the name.
> 
> I suspect this is a skewed sample; most of the technology that is 
> available via RF licenses probably isn't posted there because the 
> existence of an RF license meant that no WG needed to devote time to 
> negotiating a RAND license.
> 
> Of course it would be better if all of the licenses were 
> documented on 
> the IETF web page.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
> 
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg