There are at least half-a-dozen patents on DDS held by RTI, as listed here:
http://patents.justia.com/assignee/real-time-innovations-inc
Two "big ones" seems to be
http://www.google.com/patents/US8150988
http://www.google.com/patents/US8671135; one dates back to 2001-2002.
A casual google search locates another, not from RTI:
https://www.google.com/patents/US8874686
-- Linas
On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Jon Binney <
jon.binney@gmail.com> wrote:
> Aaron,
>
> There was a fairly long discussion of the RTI license in particular on the
> ROS-NG mailing list:
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/ros-sig-ng-ros/license/ros-sig-ng-ros/j050JkfEtPk/jmZg5pYGdz8J
> Brian does a good job of summing up the discussion in the last email in
> the thread. There is also some discussion of the licenses of various DDS
> implementations in http://design.ros2.org/articles/ros_on_dds.html . The
> license section of that article could probably use an update since it was
> written before the mailing list discussion. For example, it would be useful
> to write down the current thinking on what types of licenses would be
> acceptable for the default DDS implentation for ROS2.
>
> In my reading of the DDS license, I interpreted "OMG shall not be
> responsible for identifying patents for which a license may require use of
> an invention covered by patent rights..." to be pretty reasonable
> boilerplate. I can't imagine, for example, that willow garage would have
> wanted to be held responsible by all ROS users if it had turned out that
> some part of the TCPROS design was covered by some random company's patent
> claim.
>
> You have pointed out something I hadn't realized, though, which is that it
> is probably worth documenting the patent and copyright implications of the
> DDS/RTPS specifications themselves. Perhaps a section on that could be
> added to http://design.ros2.org/articles/ros_on_dds.html ?
>
> Jon
>
> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Aaron Schiffman via ros-users <
> ros-users@lists.ros.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Linus,
>>
>> I don't recall specifics, nor do I know the dev path osrf choose. I do
>> recall ROS 2 DDS implementation was going to be from rti.com, and rti
>> was going to provide it to ROS free of charge.
>>
>> RTI says on their website they control 70% of the DDS market, and over a
>> trillion dollars in critical systems rely on Context DDS, and the statement
>> in the omg dds 1.2 spec states:
>> The attention of adopters is directed to the possibility that
>> compliance with or adoption of OMG specifications may require use of
>> an invention covered by patent rights. OMG shall not be responsible
>> for identifying patents for which a license may be required by any
>> OMG specification, or for conducting legal inquiries into the legal
>> validity or scope of those patents that are brought to its attention.
>> OMG specifications are prospective and advisory only. Prospective users
>> are responsible for protecting themselves against liability for
>> infringement of patents.
>>
>> Search Google patents and you will find some patents submitted explicitly
>> for DDS related techs, and I can only assume some of the patents not
>> mentioning DDS cover facets of DDS.
>>
>> I can only speculate on patents at this point, but regardless rti owns
>> their software. So they definitely own some DDS related ip.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Aaron
>>
>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>> <https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From*:"Linas Vepstas" <linasvepstas@gmail.com>
>> *Date*:Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 10:08 AM
>> *Subject*:Re: [ros-users] ROS 2.0 Strategy review
>>
>> Hi Aaron,
>>
>> Can you clarify? Do you mean "IP of DDS", or IP of something else? Are
>> DDS algos patented? There used to be talk of zero-mq-based ROS, but that
>> seems to have disappeared from the table.
>>
>> My knee-jerk reaction is to be a bit suspicious of OMG-created
>> technologies; they sound great at first, but are often over-wrought (e.g.
>> corba). I'd never even heard a whisper about DDS before yesterday; I'm
>> nervous about adopting a technology that has not yet gained any acceptance
>> at all in the open-source community. So, for example, whatever one's
>> opinion of zmq might be, positive or negative, its a "known thing"; many
>> people have used it, there is developer experience, a track record.
>> There's no such track record for DDS -- the proprietary world seems to be
>> the primary consumer of the thing, and their experience with it is secret,
>> and not shared. We don't actually know how well it works (although I admit
>> it sounds really great, based on the wikipedia article).
>>
>> Anyway: please clarify: IP of what? And who "owns" that IP, who has
>> rights to it?
>>
>> -- Linas.
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Aaron Schiffman via ros-users <
>> ros-users@lists.ros.org> wrote:
>>
>>> This doesn't feel right sharing my some of my thoughts I held back since
>>> Roscon 2014 about ROS 2.0, but here goes:
>>> The ip ownership and patent of the underlying ROS 2.0 distributed udp
>>> protocol are of concern as a third party protocol implementor. Yes, ROS.org
>>> or OSRF may have explicit legal permission to use said protocol, but it is
>>> not truly an open/free platform when the public is at the mercy of the IP
>>> owner, unless the entire platform is contractually opened up and made free.
>>>
>>> As a ROS protocol implementor Ive personally held off on implementing
>>> ROS 2.0 protocols, while waiting to see how it pans out. I am still of the
>>> belief that the UDPROS protocol with enhancements can do everything the new
>>> protocol can do, but better. That really doesn't matter now though.
>>>
>>> I appreciate that osrf took the focus from protocols and put their
>>> limited resources to work on tools. In an r&d organization that would be
>>> the path I would expect to be the most rewarding, except that I've grown to
>>> appreciate think of ROS as a rock that the open robotics universe revolves
>>> around. Like I think of Linux, as an open operating system, except that ROS
>>> is more an open set of design frameworks like tcpip is a standard protocol
>>> with many implementors.
>>>
>>> Wish I could be there in Hamburg with you all! The birds of a feather
>>> meetings, and the couple hours socializing with drinks were the most
>>> influential on my development direction this past year. Watching roscon on
>>> YouTube just will not be the same.
>>>
>>> I am so stoked about this upcoming year in Robotics I can hardly contain
>>> myself (probably a good reason for me to not be there in October:)
>>>
>>> God bless Roscon 2015 in Hamburg!
>>>
>>> Aaron
>>>
>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>>> <https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ros-users mailing list
>>> ros-users@lists.ros.org
>>> http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ros-users mailing list
>> ros-users@lists.ros.org
>> http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
ros-users mailing list
ros-users@lists.ros.org
http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
(text/plain)