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

Sorry, my "has been shown" statement was about "making something much better
than G.722/G.711". The IPR part is something that would need to be discussed
within a future WG (subject to BCP79 and all).

   Jean-Marc

Quoting Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>