IBM to charge for QoS patents
By Sandra Gittlen
Network World, 11/09/98
IBM raised industry eyebrows last week by telling the
IETF that the company will charge licensing fees for
pending patents that pertain to the Multi-protocol
Label Switching quality-of-service (QoS)
specification.
By requiring other vendors to license technology,
IBM could slow deployment of MPLS and drive up
MPLS equipment prices.
IBM's move could also reduce the benefits of the
specification because developers might choose not to
implement IBM's technology if they have to pay for it.
Additionally, IBM's action could lead to nonstandard
implementations of MPLS, thus defeating the
specification's overall purpose.
MPLS defines a standard way to steer IP traffic
through the Internet over predefined routes, providing
predictable performance, and thereby helping to
guarantee IP QoS.
"The [Internet Engineering Task Force] will have to
get used to patented technology," says John Tavs,
TCP/IP technology manager for IBM in Research
Triangle Park, N.C.
"As long as patents are legal in the U.S. and networks
are important to business, then patents will play an
important role in the standards process. The Internet
community has to decide how it's going to responsibly
address patented technology," Tavs says.
"Our intent is not to delay deployment of MPLS
products," he adds. "It's only to raise the awareness
of possible infringement."
Sharp criticism voiced
Critics say IBM's stance flies in the face of the open
standards process.
"I will not be paying any money to IBM," says
Hemant Kanakia, CEO of router start-up Torrent
Networking Technologies in Silver Spring, Md. "We
can develop whatever technology we need ourselves."
"MPLS is supposed to be a networkwide standard,"
he adds. "As soon as a company starts charging
money for it, the standard is dirt and people will stop
using it."
Tavs would not disclose how much IBM will charge
or what specific technology falls under the company's
pending patents.
The company's Aggregate Route-based IP Switching
(ARIS) technology is part of the specification, along
with Cisco's Tag Switching technology. Cisco,
however, is not charging anything for its contributions.
IETF Chairman Fred Baker says patent claims are
not new to the IETF, and that a company only has to
disclose the fact that it has filed for patents or holds
them to be in compliance with the standards process.
Move could backfire
"Intellectual property in its own right is not a
problem," Baker says. But by complicating a
standard, the company may force implementers to
seek alternative methods for carrying out the
specification, he says. "If there are two equal
technologies, they will go for the unencumbered one."
"If IBM puts too high a price on the license, then it
could affect MPLS implementation," says Atul
Kapoor, managing director of The Tolly Group, a
testing and research firm in Manasquan, N.J. "Even if
it's a small amount, it could start adding up on a large
number of pieces of equipment."
Kapoor says Cisco's Tag Switching and IBM's ARIS
are not interchangeable. "Tag Switching maps labels
to packets; ARIS provides route aggregation. An
MPLS implementation would be lacking without route
aggregation," he says.
Tom Downey, Cisco's director of product marketing
for the Enterprise WAN business unit, says IBM's
patent claims are part of the IBM's "Old World"
attitude. "In the New World of networking, patents
are there to horse trade and cross-license, not to
make money."
May hurt start-ups
He adds that the smaller vendors - the start-ups - are
going to be the ones affected because the larger
vendors can just swap patents with IBM.
"If you are a small company, you are not going to pay
a lot for a patent - because you can't," agrees Tony
Rybczynski, director of strategic marketing and
technologies at Nortel Networks.
One way that the start-ups can offset the cost of
patents is to charge more for their products.
"Depending on the price that IBM is socking vendors
with, users will see it in the price of equipment," says
Mel Beckman, chief technology officer for the
Systems and Software Consortium, an ISP in Santa
Barbara, Calif.
Beckman says he already has to pay an extra 7%
more for his Cisco routers with SNA capabilities
because Cisco licenses SNA from IBM.
Beckman adds that he believes IBM is going against
the nature of open standards. "Vendors bring their
technology to the table to promulgate standards for
interoperability, not to feather their nests," he says.
"I'd be worried about standards that could get set and
then vendors get the money for it. Proprietary
interests stifle innovation. It's not healthy for the open
standards process."
Kanakia says IBM is doing itself harm by putting up
roadblocks. "I'd be very surprised if anything
proprietary to IBM makes it into the final spec."
"To put something out as a standard, you should
understand that you'll get the credit, but you give up
your proprietary rights," Beckman says.
IBM representatives say the company has patents
pending for other technologies as well, including the
Open Shortest Path First Protocol and the Virtual
Router Redundancy Protocol.
===================
this is very significant news. The last paragraph where IBM has patents pending for OSPF can be a big hit for all router companies especially csco. Maybe that's why csco was down today in an up market and considering the upgrade to strong buy. IMO, look for csco to go down substantially when this news hit a much broader audience. |
