Re: [codec] Skype IPR disclosure

Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> Wed, 24 March 2010 23:03 UTC

Return-Path: <stewe@stewe.org>
X-Original-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 188073A6E28 for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:03:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.528
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.528 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CI-f3Y+kWEMI for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stewe.org (stewe.org [85.214.122.234]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63BFB3A6C45 for <codec@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:03:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.129.29.160] (unverified [130.129.29.160]) by stewe.org (SurgeMail 3.9e) with ESMTP id 624451-1743317 for multiple; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:02:48 +0100
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.23.0.091001
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:02:35 -0700
From: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
To: Rob Glidden <rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net>
Message-ID: <C7CFE81B.206DE%stewe@stewe.org>
Thread-Topic: [codec] Skype IPR disclosure
Thread-Index: AcrLphdVyyvkiVibpUKnv2nMPKm5WA==
In-Reply-To: <4BAA8E8B.4050607@sbcglobal.net>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3352291366_3617458"
X-Originating-IP: 130.129.29.160
X-Authenticated-User: stewe@stewe.org
Cc: Codec WG <codec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [codec] Skype IPR disclosure
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:03:34 -0000

Hi Rob, all,

Wearing my ³technical advisor on IPR matters hat²:

Please let me remind you that the IETF takes no position on scope and
validity of patent claims.  I don¹t believe that the use of an IETF mailing
list to collaboratively create such a position‹even it it were not marked as
an IETF position‹is appropriate.  Please refrain from using this list for
such discussions.  

Further, I¹m also not sure that everyone here‹even a majority‹appreciates
being advised of patents through means other than the IETF¹s IPR tracking
system.  It is certainly against language and spirit of BCP 79.  If you want
to advise people of third party IPR henceforth, please use the tracker.
Feel free to contact me in private it you need logistic help with that.

Thanks,
Stephan



On 3.24.2010 15:13 , "Rob Glidden" <rob.glidden@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> I would agree that the wording seems to go beyond a narrow non-assert into
> business strategy, and this is furthered by potentially ambiguous phrasings
> such as "royalty free, reasonable and non discriminatory terms".  "RF" and
> "RAND" might overlap in some definitions, but they are not the same.
> 
> Also I would note the two statements (1297 and 1164) appear to be (only?) a
> single patent application for a method of estimating noise levels with 3
> independent claims.  As further progress is made, it might be helpful to
> understand scope and prior art, and relationship to an entire contribution,
> and the specific quantified value of the novelty identified in the
> international search opinion of applying opposite non-linear functions.
> 
> Though not reflected in the disclosure, the US application claims priority to
> a Great Britain Application No. 0703275.8, filed Feb. 20, 2007.
> 
> http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fne
> tahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=12%2F006057&OS=
> 12/006057&RS=12/006057
> 
> The PCT is at:
> 
> http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2008102207
> 
> Perhaps someone familiar with this application would correct any
> mis-impressions above?
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote:
>>  
>> stephen botzko wrote:
>>   
>>  
>>>  
>>> I think it is unreasonable to require IPR holders to unconditionally promise
>>> to not assert their patents under any and all circumstances.
>>>     
>>>  
>>  
>> 
>> I am not asking for such an unconditional promise.  I am just noting some
>> restrictions that seem especially onerous to me.
>> 
>>   
>>  
>>>  
>>> In practice the first clause does not immunize Skype from lawsuits.  Many
>>> companies have similar "defensive suspension" clauses, and they still get
>>> sued fairly regularly.
>>>     
>>>  
>>  
>> 
>> There are different kinds of defensive suspension.  For example, the W3C
>> allows defensive suspension, but only for lawsuits on patent infringement:
>> """
>> a W3C Royalty-Free license ... may be suspended with respect to any
>> licensee when licensor is sued by licensee for infringement of claims
>> essential to implement any W3C Recommendation ... [but] may not impose any
>> further conditions or restrictions
>> """
>> (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20030520#sec-Requirements)
>> 
>> That seems like a reasonable case for defensive suspension.  Skype's
>> wording, by contrast, is totally unreasonable, as it extends the defensive
>> suspension to _all_ lawsuits, no matter their object.  I expect most
>> companies to use the IWAC, and maybe even most humans eventually.  The
>> retroactive revocation means that these people can be deterred from suing
>> Skype/Ebay even after the patents have all expired.
>> 
>> It's absurd, not to mention legally questionable.
>> 
>>   
>>  
>>>  
>>> The second clause ensures that someone outside the IETF cannot take the
>>> Skype technology, improve it, and offer a competitive proprietrary codec
>>> that uses Skype IPR. If you modify the codec, you should be doing it in the
>>> context of the IETF standard.
>>>     
>>>  
>>  
>> 
>> And once the standard is made?  Skype could effectively block the IETF
>> from creating an improved version of its own codec, or any optional
>> extensions (they're not "necessary").  I don't think that's reasonable at
>> all.
>> 
>> --Ben
>> 
>>   
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> codec mailing list
>> codec@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>>   
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> codec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec