<html>
<body>
<font size=3>At 11:27 AM 10/11/2004, Ronald G. Minnich wrote:<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Michael
Krause wrote:<br><br>
> Spec for free or spec for a price - neither grants anyone rights to
any<br>
> IP contained within the specifications or on the technologies
that<br>
> surround the specification. The change in spec cost, while
clearly<br>
> unfortunate, has no impact on the IP rights. IP rights are
defined by<br>
> the IBTA membership agreement (just like they are for PCI and any
number<br>
> of other technologies used within the industry). If you want
to<br>
> implement a technology, then you have to be a member of the
appropriate<br>
> organization and agree to the same industry-wide terms that others
do. <br>
> Hence, this problem is not IB-specific but a fact of life within
the<br>
> industry.<br><br>
funny, I don't recall these problems with Ethernet.
</font></blockquote><br>
IEEE requires RAND licensing by companies; it does not license the
technology to individuals. So the same problems exist for Ethernet
as it does for IB as it does for many technologies.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=3>> Again, this is
true of many technologies not just IB. For example, if a<br>
> company has patents on PCI Express and someone implements a device
/<br>
> chipset / whatever and they are not part of the PCI-SIG, then they
can<br>
> be subject to different terms than someone who is a member of
the<br>
> PCI-SIG. In both cases, the access to specs, etc. has nothing
to do<br>
> with IP licensing.<br><br>
sorry, I think about protocol software differently than chips. Maybe I'm
<br>
thinking incorrectly here.</blockquote><br>
There are software patents in all of these protocol off-load technologies
just like there are hardware patents. As people start to use
embedded processors for various communication workloads, the line between
software and hardware patents will blur even further.<br><br>
Mike</font></body>
</html>