Re: [codec] I-D Action:draft-ietf-codec-opus-00.txt

[Jean-Marc Valin <[e-mail]>]

Hi Christian,

I don't know the details of the ITU-T trademark issues, but in this case, 
the Opus name will not be controlled by any company (I'm not aware of 
anyone registering a trademark on the "Opus" name in this context). I'm not 
against the IETF owning the trademark, but I'm not sure any ownership is 
necessary to begin with.

Cheers,

	Jean-Marc

As a note, my company does use the term "Opus" in a different domain of 
application (digital signal processor architecture) and sees no issue with 
the IETF using it for an audio codec. Oh, and no, I'm not the one who 
originally suggested that name.

On 10-10-19 01:02 PM, Christian Hoene wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the ITU had some problems with trademarks that were given to standardized algorithms.
> As far as I remember, PESQ or PEAQ are trademarked by some companies. Since then, the ITU-T name their standards only by numbers.
>
> I do not have any problems with nicknames. However, I think the trademark issue shall be addressed and it is important. I would prefer that such as trademark is owned by the IETF if possible.
>
> Uspto.gov does not list an opus codec. But I do not know how fast they  (or the readers of this mailing list) are...
>
> With best regards,
>
>   Christian
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr.-Ing. Christian Hoene
> Interactive Communication Systems (ICS), University of Tübingen
> Sand 13, 72076 Tübingen, Germany, Phone [phone]
> http://www.net.uni-tuebingen.de/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Stephan Wenger
> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 6:05 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [codec] I-D Action:draft-ietf-codec-opus-00.txt
>
> Hi Jean-Marc,
>
> Four things:
>
> First, indeed, there was a hum at the last meeting.  Weak memory on my side.
> Apologies.
>
> Second, hums need to be reconfirmed on the mailing list, and that has not
> happened according to my read of the email archive.
>
> Third, I also missed the submission of draft-ietf-codec-description-00,
> which was really the time I should have complained.
>
> So I'm willing to assume (as apparently have the chairs, see point #2) that
> there has been an implied consensus of the WG to accept the
> codec-description draft.  Which brings me to point #4:
>
> As this is now a WG item, any major change requires WG consensus.  Selecting
> a marketing name, IMO, is such a major change.  "Opus" is such a flashy name
> that certain participants and/or companies conceivably may not like it.  For
> example, if I were working for a company that has in its portfolio an audio
> product named "Opus", I would object to the name change.  So the thing you
> should have done, IMO, is to send an email to the list saying "The editors
> consider changing the name of our codec to Opus.  Is that acceptable to the
> WG?".
>
> It appears to me that twice you guys (chairs included) have taken shortcuts
> with the IETF's procedures, as I understand them.  That, IMO, fills up your
> quota for the next couple of years.  Please be more conservative from now
> on.
>
> Regards,
> Stephan
>
>
>
>
> On 10.19.2010 08:31 , "Jean-Marc Valin"<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> draft-ietf-codec-opus-00.txt is indeed a WG item. It has had several names
>> in the past, including draft-valin-codec-prototype and
>> draft-valin-codec-definition, which may explain the confusion. This is the
>> draft for which there was a hum during the last meeting.
>>
>> Jean-Marc
>>
>> On 10-10-19 11:26 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I want to inquire the status of this draft.  In many working groups, the
>>> filename "draft-ietf-<wg name>-xxx" indicates that the draft in question is
>>> a WG item of WG<wg-name>.  Following this logic, it would appear that the
>>> "opus" draft is now a WG item of the codec WG.  I don't recall a decision to
>>> than extent.
>>>
>>> If the draft were indeed accepted as a WG item, I would like to encourage
>>> those who made IPR statements related to it, to resubmit those statements
>>> with the new filename.  This would help those of us who are searching
>>> through the IETF IPR tracker by WG name (which is a very common thing to do,
>>> at least for me).
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Stephan
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10.15.2010 13:30 , "[e-mail]"<[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>>>> directories.
>>>> This draft is a work item of the Internet Wideband Audio Codec Working Group
>>>> of the IETF.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Title           : Definition of the Opus Audio Codec
>>>> Author(s)       : J. Valin, K. Vos
>>>> Filename        : draft-ietf-codec-opus-00.txt
>>>> Pages           : 12
>>>> Date            : 2010-10-15
>>>>
>>>> This document describes the Opus codec, designed for interactive
>>>> speech and audio transmission over the Internet.
>>>>
>>>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-codec-opus-00.txt
>>>>
>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>>
>>>> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
>>>> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
>>>> Internet-Draft.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> codec mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> codec mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec