North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: optics pricing (Re: Weird GigE Media Converter Behavior)

  • From: Mark Borchers
  • Date: Mon Aug 30 13:52:12 2004

Peter Galbavy wrote:
> 
> On the other hand, the use of patent licenses (like those 
> that say "free if 
> you don't claim against us") for things like VRRP do worry me.
> 

Everybody's entitled to their opinion, but this excerpt from 
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR//VRRP-CISCO does not seem to me
to portend predatory pricing:

/qw
Cisco believes that implementation of draft-ietf-vrrp-spec-05.txt will 
require a license to Cisco's patent #5,473,599. If this protocol is 
approved as an IETF standard, licenses will be available to any party on

reasonable, nondiscriminatory terms for implentation of the protocol.

On March 20, 1998, the definitive statement from Cisco Systems was
received:

From: Martin McNealis <[email protected]>

  The following statement is in response to recent requests for a
  clarification on Cisco Systems' position regarding both its Hot
  Standby Router Protocol (HSRP) and the Virtual Router Redundancy
  Protocol (VRRP) proposal:-


    In Cisco's assessment, the VRRP proposal does not represent
    any significantly different functionality from that available
    with HSRP and also implementation of 'draft-ietf-vrrp-spec-06.txt'
    would likely infringe on Cisco's patent #5,473,599.

    When Cisco originally learned of the VRRP proposal, the Hot
    Standby Router Protocol was then promptly offered for
    standardization with the understanding that, if approved,
    licenses for HSRP would be made available on reasonable,
    nondiscriminatory terms for implementation of the protocol.
    This offer stands for the adoption and implementation of
    HSRP.

    However, now that the 'draft-li-hsrp-01.txt' submission is
    approaching expiration and the Working Group is continuing with
    the VRRP proposal, Cisco Systems reserves the right to protect
    its intellectual property. Furthermore, Cisco takes the position
    that standardizing on another proposal that so closely mirrors
    an existing, well established, extensively deployed protocol
    is out of step with the principles and practices embodied in the
    IETF and would thus represent cause for concern within the
    industry.

/qw