Re: [codec] Skype IPR disclosure

stephen botzko <> Sun, 28 March 2010 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FF273A67AC for <>; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 10:24:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.133
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.133 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.265, BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mD1PPJpHp0we for <>; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 10:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C69C3A672F for <>; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 10:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gyh4 with SMTP id 4so5474883gyh.31 for <>; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 10:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:received:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=OSUX6Mfe1Q/RDxNxOJiwvli4rJHdoktzBjnyfhXsY9c=; b=RgKxmMBEZK08eoveJ0j7mp/7L/Wppxa6IoW1wJJ8G/VrDJWwyHj3lcj7HhyNWdoFdP pjZIvtvoznggGjkyVjg6dkS4TjUEAYqSLzudvnmknoicUpSmmsJ94QEb25duWoRuX66l b80pBN5PbgL6BoK2NM8FXhVrHC1PkxHMWVMWU=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=jlZt0cWivS/QdX3w+3p02/mAJB6NTsec6A3Fwl7EJVlCYydN20GIRpyatjTs2UWTgA +mndJ/zNq7OSXwGVNOh80chHL8HoSqorW/uyeRfnx5JPpDV2OHJmH+ADkpzrZJO0RUNI oIwKihA+aXM2nzff8rJ9Ns3ehRoHtLE0/olgY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 10:24:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 13:24:50 -0400
Received: by with SMTP id u1mr3875141ybm.200.1269797091160; Sun, 28 Mar 2010 10:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
From: stephen botzko <>
To: Stephan Wenger <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001e680f0a4c8e342e0482dfacbe"
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: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:24:28 -0000

>>> Stephan Wenger worte....
I continue to believe that it is within the IETF policy (and, arguably,
within common sense) to let people decide for themselves whether they want
to participate in discussions concerning third party patent matter, and,
independently of the outcome of this decision, still participate in the WG
(for example on purely technical subjects).  My fear is that, by exposing
folks to patent numbers and handy hyperlinks to patent material, you take
some of this choice away.

So I believe that both “willful ignorance” and “avoidance [of exposure to
patent numbers]” are both within the language and the spirit of the IETF’s
patent policy.
I agree completely (also with  your reply to Marc).

In practice, we begin by individually reviewing the IPR disclosures are they
announced.  99.9% of the time, the commercial terms are completely
acceptable, so there is no reason to do anything further.

The only case where examining the details of the patents in an IPR is ever
necessary  is when (1) the terms are unacceptable to the community,
*and*(2) we need to use
*some* of the referenced technology in the standard.  Even in that case, it
is best if the work is structured in such a way that so people can opt out.

In this particular situation, there has been no decision yet to use the
Skype contribution in the standard, so there is no reason to start diving
into this IPR disclosure are all right now.

Stephen Botzko