[Tinyos-alliance] Feedback on IP policies

[dculler]

  _____  

From: tinyos-alliance-bounces at millennium.berkeley.edu
[mailto:tinyos-alliance-bounces at millennium.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of
Nachman, Lama
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 7:27 PM
To: David E. Culler; tinyos-alliance at millennium.berkeley.edu; Jeonghoon Kang
Subject: [Tinyos-alliance] Feedback on IP policies

 

Hi guys,

I got some feedback from the Intel lawyers regarding IP polices, here is a
summary.  Sorry for the delay, I was out of town the last week.

 

Intel prefers to participate in organizations that are under "RAND" terms,
i.e. by signing up as a participant in this organization, we agree to make
licenses available on Reasonable And Non Discriminatory terms to any patents
that are infringed by implementing the specification or adopting the
standard.  This approach is consistent with the OCR model.  Intel on the
other hand, has problems signing up to RF (Royalty-Free) SIGs (e.g Zigbee).
The main driver behind these recommendations is to avoid diluting the value
of our IP portfolio.

 

Here are the specifics on the presentation:

1.	It is great that we are not suggesting that people need to disclose
all IP.  This is a non-starter as I commented back in the meeting.
2.	It is not clear what the open / no cost IP is all about, again the
issue here is that we can not go with a Royalty free approach.  So, if we
can move towards a RAND model, this would be much easier.
3.	On open source license, BSD or Apache are preferable, we clearly
have issues with GPL.  Between BSD or Apache, Apache is preferable but we
can go with either.

 

Let me know if you have questions/concerns.

 

Thanks,

 

Lama

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.millennium.berkeley.edu/pipermail/tinyos-alliance/attachments/20060228/ea155fa5/attachment.html