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

[Steve Underwood <[e-mail]>]

On 12/25/2009 11:26 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> I don't think it is a very good idea to attempt this type of work in
> the IETF. We have enough difficulty doing crypto algorithms and that
> is an area where we have tens of people with decades worth of
> expertise who pretty much mostly agree on the algorithms to use in any
> case.
>
> An unencumbered CODEC would be very useful, but any new CODEC that was
> developed would be subject to attack by patent trolls. So the group
> would be pretty much limited to reviewing existing technologies and
> attempting to select one that is out of patent.
>
> Looking at technologies that are out-of-patent or soon to be out of
> patent, well DVD came out in 1995 and the patent licensing terms are
> reasonably well defined. MP3 and AC3 are the existing industry
> standards. If we know when the patents drop dead, I can't see how IETF
> imprimatur is going to add or detract anything there. Its not as if
> the IETF can stand behind the spec and say that it is definitively
> unencumbered. So the most we are going to have is a document that
> brings together all the relevant information and allows people to
> quickly come to a degree of confidence that the technology will be
> inencumbered on a certain date.
>    
So, you think the IETF should stop all work, because there's not a 
single thing they define that can't be subject to the same patent issues.

Steve