Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)

Hi Jean-Marc,

I don't think anything "has been shown", with respect to IPR and RF
properties of the current input proposal documents.  And I don't believe
anything conclusive will be shown, ever.  At best, arguably, nothing
substantial has been shown against an RF claim of the input proposals.
Arguably", because the Skype assurance in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1164/ is hardly a strongly worded, binding,
non-assert or license.

Theoretically, even the 23 year timeframe (of publication of G.722) does not
(yet) provide full certainty under US law against patent encumbrances;
though the position of a G.722 user is probably very strong now.  Look up
"prosecution laches" if you want to know how I came to these conclusions.

I completely agree that we should not exclusively rely on 20 year old
technologies on a mission to "make the Internet work better", not even on
the grounds of patent fears.  Expect me to use this argument occasionally
:-)

Stephan

On 1/11/10 7:32 AM, "Jean-Marc Valin" <Jean-Marc.Valin@USherbrooke.ca>
wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Regardless of the exact status of the PLC IPR, I don't think it would be a
> good
> idea to just say that "the Internet should just follow ITU-T standards with a
> 20-year lag". As it has been already shown with the codec proposals received
> to
> date, it should be possible to create RF codecs that are *much* better than
> G.722 and G.711.
> 
>    Jean-Marc
> 
> Quoting Steve Underwood <steveu@coppice.org>:
> 
>> On 01/11/2010 11:00 PM, Christian Hoene wrote:
>>> Dear Herve Taddei,
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Besides, I don't think you would have any trouble to propose at ITU-T some
>>>> new appendices to G.711 and G.722 that could fit your goals. An appendix
>> is
>>>> non normative (a bit like the informative reference to G.711 PLC in iLBC).
>>>> By the way, if I am not wrong, some basic ITU-T G.722 PLCs are RF.
>>>> 
>>> This was my understanding, too.
>>> 
>> The G.722 spec is 23 years old, so it would be difficult for any of the
>> patents on that spec to still be valid. The ITU patent database does
>> list US patent 5528629 as related to G.722, but I assume this is an
>> error. The patent dates from so long after G.722 came out, and its
>> contents do not appear relevant to G.722. However, the recent additions
>> for PLC are:
>> 
>>      G.722 (1988) App IV - Broadcom has claims
>>      G.722 Appendix III - Broadcom has claims
>>      G.722 Appendix IV - France Telecom has claims.
>> 
>> Have you seen any clear statements that those patents may be used
>> royalty free?
>> 
>> Steve
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> codec mailing list
>> codec@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf