Re: [codec] Authors and disclosures, regarding Last Call: <draft-ietf-codec-opus-12.txt>

"Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming@digium.com> Wed, 02 May 2012 14:39 UTC

Return-Path: <kpfleming@digium.com>
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 C57B521F864E for <codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 May 2012 07:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.824
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.824 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.517, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H4dldIzL-mW2 for <codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 May 2012 07:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.digium.com (mail.digium.com [216.207.245.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AE6621F864D for <codec@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 May 2012 07:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.24.55.203] (helo=zimbra.hsv.digium.com) by mail.digium.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <kpfleming@digium.com>) id 1SPaid-0002v4-Qq for codec@ietf.org; Wed, 02 May 2012 09:39:51 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.hsv.digium.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC89FD8004 for <codec@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 May 2012 09:39:51 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from zimbra.hsv.digium.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.hsv.digium.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ToKCp6RnKSjA for <codec@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 May 2012 09:39:51 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [10.24.250.46] (unknown [10.24.250.46]) by zimbra.hsv.digium.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7B7ACD8002 for <codec@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 May 2012 09:39:51 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <4FA14729.20708@digium.com>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 09:39:37 -0500
From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming@digium.com>
Organization: Digium, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120410 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: codec@ietf.org
References: <CAOf0ZB_S+rB20NQCBB=tsO=5iti4HhnEZRTte2pJuz2O36uQ-A@mail.gmail.com> <4FA07CE4.7090206@mozilla.com> <4FA12C35.9000703@digium.com> <4FA1392E.8040702@jmvalin.ca>
In-Reply-To: <4FA1392E.8040702@jmvalin.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [codec] Authors and disclosures, regarding Last Call: <draft-ietf-codec-opus-12.txt>
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: Wed, 02 May 2012 14:39:52 -0000

On 05/02/2012 08:39 AM, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
>
>
> On 12-05-02 08:44 AM, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
>> While it's true that SILK was available at that time, it was only
>> available in binary form embedded inside products delivered by Skype,
>> and those products heavily obscure and encrypt their behavior. It seems
>> unlikely that anyone who had IPR in any of its methods would have been
>> able to determine that SILK was potentially infringing before its source
>> code was made available. I would consider the 'first public disclosure'
>> date to be the first time the source code was published.
>
> As far as I can tell, the actual source code was released as open source
> in March 2010, though it may have been available before that to
> developers willing to sign some agreement. Also, fortunately prior art
> gets established based on the time Silk was available even in obfuscated
> form.

In the legal sense that is absolutely true, sure. The OP's comment 
though was that he wasn't sure whether potential IPR holders had had 
enough time to determine whether SILK/OPUS may be infringing on their 
IPR. In that case, the extra year of SILK availability in binary-only 
obfuscated form likely won't make much difference.

Also, we were one of the licensees of SILK prior to the source code 
publication (although we never released any products using it) and the 
codec was only offered to us in binary form.

-- 
Kevin P. Fleming
Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies
Jabber: kfleming@digium.com | SIP: kpfleming@digium.com | Skype: kpfleming
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org