Re: [codec] WGLC of draft-ietf-codec-opus-07

"Christian Hoene" <hoene@uni-tuebingen.de> Sun, 24 July 2011 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <hoene@uni-tuebingen.de>
X-Original-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8BF321F8880 for <codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 07:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AcuaFoy-xjT7 for <codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 07:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx06.uni-tuebingen.de (mx06.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.3.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A99F21F85DB for <codec@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 07:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoeneT60 (modemcable004.100-203-24.mc.videotron.ca [24.203.100.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx06.uni-tuebingen.de (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p6OEYA8F023911 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 24 Jul 2011 16:34:19 +0200
From: "Christian Hoene" <hoene@uni-tuebingen.de>
To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?'Jehan_Pag=E8s'?=" <jehan.marmottard@gmail.com>
References: <D0DF9C6A-8344-46CF-A8E3-E2BA90EC2149@cisco.com> <4E26B5E3.8070107@jdrosen.net> <CAFgjPJ8dbb1wSyU4zVS-mhvCdeUYrSibOpB=9rAXSY40oLCJAw@mail.gmail.com> <61AC1718-694E-45D9-9E0E-4CB0352F2645@cisco.com> <CAFgjPJ-AxtpQ_sG0cY=XJCX64Uk7eAxXJMcBFG-UtDDX5bix0w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFgjPJ-AxtpQ_sG0cY=XJCX64Uk7eAxXJMcBFG-UtDDX5bix0w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 16:34:14 +0200
Organization: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Universit=E4t_T=FCbingen?=
Message-ID: <004401cc4a0e$c9334600$5b99d200$@uni-tuebingen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQFOUk2kP0tGJJ09CpDYe0yRa+4pcwLeI0CdAcCwXRIB4pk1EAHWrbW2lbSj2kA=
Content-Language: de
X-AntiVirus: NOT checked by Avira MailGate (version: 3.2.1.23; host: mx06)
Cc: codec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [codec] WGLC of draft-ietf-codec-opus-07
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec>
List-Post: <mailto:codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 14:34:23 -0000

> > The conversation I want us to avoid is discussing if the IPR is claims
are valid
> or not - it's not a topic the IETF takes on but clearly the IETF does want
people
> to be aware that the claims exist and that people have to make their own
> decisions about claims. I imagine people feeling about the claims will
factor
> into their opinions about if they think the draft is worth publishing as
an RFC
> or not. Stephan is our IPR advisor for this group so hopefully if I said
> something wrong here he can correct me - he understands all of this better
> than I do.
> >
> 
> I understand that IETF does not want to take a position. But for
> individuals (like I), it is hard to make one's "own decision" on the
> patents topic, as it is a pretty difficult subject, especially when
> one is not part of a big company with lawyers or patent experts. So
> that's had to evaluate any risk here. Hence that's why I am looking
> for expertise of knowledgeable people on patents in the IETF's mls.
> Anyway I'll see this mailing list that Christian linked me.
> 
> Thanks all, for the various answers.
> 
> Jehan

[Christian Hoene] After having an open-source codec, we might need to have a
legal analysis about IPR claims that is under creative commons...
Otherwise, the first time cost sof using the codec would still be
substantial (beside cost of IPR risks that will remain anyhow).

CH