As further clarification, here is the US patent office transaction history for the SRI application, which shows that the application was rejected on 8/02/04:
http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnM z0vM0Y_QjzKLN4gPMATJgFieAfqRqCLGpugijnABX4_83FT9IKBEpDlQxNDCRz8qJzU9MblS P1jfWz9AvyA3NDSi3NsRAHxEBJg!/delta/base64xml/L0lJSk03dWlDU1lKSi9vQXd3QUF NWWdBQ0VJUWhDRUVJaEZLQSEvNEZHZ2RZbktKMEZSb1hmckNIZGgvN18wXzE4TC81L3NhLmd ldEJpYg!!?selectedTab=fileHistorytab&isSubmitted=isSubmitted&dosnum=0972 8253&public_selectedSearchOption= and here is the 12/01/04 "IPR Status" summary from KAME stating the basis for including ISATAP in their product: http://www.kame.net/newsletter/20041201/ Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: Templin, Fred L > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 6:42 AM > To: David Stevens; Pekka Savola > Cc: David Miller; netdev@vger.kernel.org; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [PATCH 00/05] ipv6: RFC4214 Support > > I think I can clear this up. The patent office rejected > SRI's patent application, therefore there are no valid > claims that could prevent ISATAP from being included > in public domain software releases. Indeed, Microsoft, > cisco, and FreeBSD/KAME are shipping ISATAP and have > been doing so for a long time, and I believe there are > also several others. > > Fred > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 11:54 PM > > To: Pekka Savola > > Cc: David Miller; Templin, Fred L; netdev@vger.kernel.org; > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/05] ipv6: RFC4214 Support > > > > > give it away on this specific instance. I'm not sure if > you should > > > attribute to hidden agendas what you can explain by "doing > > the right > > > thing" (granted, very few companies do this which may make > > it suspect, > > > but still..). > > > > Pekka, > > I'm not assuming hidden agendas here; I simply > don't know what > > they mean by "no license for implementers." It doesn't say they > > relinquish *all* licensing, which would be clearer if > that's what they > > mean. If implementers, distributors, and users are included, then > > who's left that does need licensing? If that answer really > is nobody, > > then why bother with "for implementers."? > > So, I don't think it's a hidden agenda, I think > they said what > > they mean. I just don't know what they mean. :-) > > > > > +-DLS > > > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
