datatracker.ietf.org
Sign in
Version 5.3.0, 2014-04-12
Report a bug

Karl Auerbach's statement about possible IPR claimed in RFC 4656 belonging to Hewlett Packard

Only those sections of the "Patent Disclosure and Licensing Declaration Template for Notification" where the submitter provided information are displayed.

Update this IPR disclosure. Note: Updates to IPR disclosures must only be made by authorized representatives of the original submitters. Updates will automatically be forwarded to the current Patent Holder's Contact and to the Submitter of the original IPR disclosure.

Submitted Date: September 25, 2006

I. Possible Patent Holder/Applicant ("Patent Holder")
Legal Name: Hewlett Packard
II. Contact Information for the IETF Participant Whose Personal Belief Triggered this Disclosure:
Name: Karl Auerbach
Title:
Department:
Address1:
Address2:
Telephone: +1 831 430-3610 x 108
Fax:
Email: karl@cavebear.com
III. IETF Document or Other Contribution to Which this IPR Disclosure Relates:
RFC 4656:"A One-way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP)"
IV. Disclosure of Patent Information (i.e., patents or patent applications required to be disclosed by Section 6 of RFC 3979)
A. For granted patents or published pending patent applications, please provide the following information:
Patent, Serial, Publication, Registration, or Application/File number(s): Not known
Date(s) granted or applied for: Not known
Country: Probably US
Additional Notes:

Several years ago I heard that Hewlett Packard had a patent on cross-net latency
measurements that used GPS time sources. (Given that HP split itself in two,
the patent, if it exists might be owned by Agilent.)

I have no idea whether I was hearing (or mis-hearing), much less any details on
the patent.

This RFC might suggest something that, if implemented, might impinge on that
patent (assuming that it exists.)

I hate to be so vague, but I don't have anything more concrete. I was working
on some net measurement tools myself (e.g.
http://www.cavebear.com/fpcp/fpcp-sept-19-2000.html ) and remember that I and
several others avoided using GPS time measurements for transit-time measurements
precisely because of the existence of this putative patent.

By-the-way, as for question "B" below, I have no idea whether what I heard
about was an unpublished application. But it was several years ago so any
period of non-publication ought to have expired by now.

B. Does this disclosure relate to an unpublished pending patent application?: 0
C. If an Internet-Draft or RFC includes multiple parts and it is not reasonably apparent which part of such Internet-Draft or RFC is alleged to be covered by the patent information disclosed in Section V(A) or V(B), it is helpful if the discloser identifies here the sections of the Internet-Draft or RFC that are alleged to be so covered:
No information submitted