Re: [codec] Skype IPR disclosure

[Marc Petit-Huguenin <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephan,

On 03/28/2010 02:17 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> Hi Marc,
> 
> It is not difficult to convey a patent-related motivation--even
> information--without exposing other people and their employers in an obvious
> way.  
> 
> Allow me to put exaggerated words into your mouth: "I believe our current
> draft, especially algorithm T, is infringing on US 1,234,567, claim 8.  We
> may be better off with T', because <non-infringement argument>"  (Believe it
> or not, I have seen this type of language, and not from a plaintiff's
> attorney in a closing argument--which is the only place where such words
> ought to be uttered :-)  And here is what I would write: "In conjunction
> with IPR disclosure #1234, I have studied certain documents.  It may be to
> all (well, almost all) of our advantage if we were replacing algorithm T
> with algorithm T'.  One advantage would be <non-infringement argument>"
> 
> The first alternative exposes all subscribers to a patent number, and would
> show up with a simple google search of a patent numbers (even lawyers
> representing trolls know google, unfortunately, and probably a bit better
> than some of us...).  The second conveys information that an informed and
> interested reader can probably quite easily use to end up with the same
> factual information, but is not so obvious.

So double indirection would be OK, but not simple indirection.

> 
> That's all what I ask for.
> 
> (That I, personally, like my hide enough not to discuss someone else's
> patent is a different story.)
> 
> As for the documentation of motivations for historic reasons: motivations
> for design choices get lost in standardization all the time.
> 

And it is probably the reason why it takes so much time to someone even
motivated to implement this specs right.


-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Personal email: [e-mail]
Professional email: [e-mail]
Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org