Re: [codec] Skype IPR disclosure

Marc Petit-Huguenin <> Mon, 29 March 2010 15:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A318D3A68F1 for <>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 08:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.171
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.171 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.637, BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wBF66hL75vll for <>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 08:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A87B23A6839 for <>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 08:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 7A640EBC4012; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:03:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9466BEBC4002; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:03:17 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 08:03:14 -0700
From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100307 Iceowl/1.0b1 Icedove/3.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephan Wenger <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Codec WG <>
Subject: Re: [codec] Skype IPR disclosure
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:02:53 -0000

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:
Professional email: