James Carlson wrote:
>
> Glen Zorn writes:
> > L2TP is is sole subject of RFC 2661. Cisco holds no IPR WRT L2TP, nor does
> > it license it to or from anybody.
>
> I would very much like to hear a clear statement from Cisco's lawyers
> on this subject. The last such public communication that I know of
> was this one:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/CISCO-L2TP
>
> This certainly leaves the situation a lot less clear than you seem to
> be indicating, at least to me.
>
> For what it's worth, I personally know several folks who've been
> contacted by lawyers involved in L2TP IPR litigation (including
> myself), and who are thus quite adverse to implementing any part of
> that standard for that reason. Talking to lawyers about IPR is not an
> enjoyable part of the job. If Cisco is not pursuing these claims,
> then I think that'd be wonderful news to make known more widely so
> that the standard can become more widely used.
>
I believe that it is public knowledge (and not in violation of any NDA)
that Cisco has been pursuing claims against Alcatel for over 3 years now.
The case has passed factual discovery, is in expert depositions, and is
expected to go to trial in the near future.
--
William Allen Simpson
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
|
