Re: [codec] I-D Action:draft-ietf-codec-opus-00.txt

[Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]>]

I agree with Stephen.
In addition, there are kinds of marks that are not registered (and thus
cannot be found in the USPTO database), but are still enforceable.

(As an interesting (at least to me) side note, the trademark problematic can
also go the other way.  There is a Chinese guy who tries to sell the world
³his² H.265 video codec‹which has nothing to do with the ITU¹s effort
towards a Recommendation that may bear this name a few years down the road.
Would his activity ³burn² the designation of a future video codec as H.265
by the ITU?  In the IETF, AFAIK, the combination of  ³RFC² and a number is
sufficiently well protected, and that¹s what is really the main concern.
I¹m not sure the ITU has similarly strong mechanisms in place...)

Stephan



On 10.19.2010 10:44 , "Stephen Botzko" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Registering trademarks can be expensive, esp. if you are doing it in multiple
> countries.  I don't see any necessity for this - even if we had the money, I'd
> rather see it go for additional characterization/testing.
> 
> Regards
> Stephen Botzko
> 
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Jean-Marc Valin <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>> Hi Christian,
>> 
>> I don't know the details of the ITU-T trademark issues, but in this case, the
>> Opus name will not be controlled by any company (I'm not aware of anyone
>> registering a trademark on the "Opus" name in this context). I'm not against
>> the IETF owning the trademark, but I'm not sure any ownership is necessary to
>> begin with.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>>         Jean-Marc
>> 
>> As a note, my company does use the term "Opus" in a different domain of
>> application (digital signal processor architecture) and sees no issue with
>> the IETF using it for an audio codec. Oh, and no, I'm not the one who
>> originally suggested that name.
>> 
>> 
>> On 10-10-19 01:02 PM, Christian Hoene wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> the ITU had some problems with trademarks that were given to standardized
>>> algorithms.
>>> As far as I remember, PESQ or PEAQ are trademarked by some companies. Since
>>> then, the ITU-T name their standards only by numbers.
>>> 
>>> I do not have any problems with nicknames. However, I think the trademark
>>> issue shall be addressed and it is important. I would prefer that such as
>>> trademark is owned by the IETF if possible.
>>> 
>>> Uspto.gov does not list an opus codec. But I do not know how fast they  (or
>>> the readers of this mailing list) are...
>>> 
>>> With best regards,
>>> 
>>>   Christian
>>> 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Dr.-Ing. Christian Hoene
>>> Interactive Communication Systems (ICS), University of Tübingen
>>> Sand 13, 72076 Tübingen, Germany, Phone [phone]
>>> 
>>> http://www.net.uni-tuebingen.de/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>>> Stephan Wenger
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 6:05 PM
>>> To: [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [codec] I-D Action:draft-ietf-codec-opus-00.txt
>>> 
>>> Hi Jean-Marc,
>>> 
>>> Four things:
>>> 
>>> First, indeed, there was a hum at the last meeting.  Weak memory on my side.
>>> Apologies.
>>> 
>>> Second, hums need to be reconfirmed on the mailing list, and that has not
>>> happened according to my read of the email archive.
>>> 
>>> Third, I also missed the submission of draft-ietf-codec-description-00,
>>> which was really the time I should have complained.
>>> 
>>> So I'm willing to assume (as apparently have the chairs, see point #2) that
>>> there has been an implied consensus of the WG to accept the
>>> codec-description draft.  Which brings me to point #4:
>>> 
>>> As this is now a WG item, any major change requires WG consensus.  Selecting
>>> a marketing name, IMO, is such a major change.  "Opus" is such a flashy name
>>> that certain participants and/or companies conceivably may not like it.  For
>>> example, if I were working for a company that has in its portfolio an audio
>>> product named "Opus", I would object to the name change.  So the thing you
>>> should have done, IMO, is to send an email to the list saying "The editors
>>> consider changing the name of our codec to Opus.  Is that acceptable to the
>>> WG?".
>>> 
>>> It appears to me that twice you guys (chairs included) have taken shortcuts
>>> with the IETF's procedures, as I understand them.  That, IMO, fills up your
>>> quota for the next couple of years.  Please be more conservative from now
>>> on.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Stephan
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 10.19.2010 08:31 , "Jean-Marc Valin"<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> draft-ietf-codec-opus-00.txt is indeed a WG item. It has had several names
>>>> in the past, including draft-valin-codec-prototype and
>>>> draft-valin-codec-definition, which may explain the confusion. This is the
>>>> draft for which there was a hum during the last meeting.
>>>> 
>>>> Jean-Marc
>>>> 
>>>> On 10-10-19 11:26 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I want to inquire the status of this draft.  In many working groups, the
>>>>> filename "draft-ietf-<wg name>-xxx" indicates that the draft in question
>>>>> is
>>>>> a WG item of WG<wg-name>.  Following this logic, it would appear that the
>>>>> "opus" draft is now a WG item of the codec WG.  I don't recall a decision
>>>>> to
>>>>> than extent.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If the draft were indeed accepted as a WG item, I would like to encourage
>>>>> those who made IPR statements related to it, to resubmit those statements
>>>>> with the new filename.  This would help those of us who are searching
>>>>> through the IETF IPR tracker by WG name (which is a very common thing to
>>>>> do,
>>>>> at least for me).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Stephan
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 10.15.2010 13:30 , "[e-mail]"<[e-mail]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>>>>>> directories.
>>>>>> This draft is a work item of the Internet Wideband Audio Codec Working
>>>>>> Group
>>>>>> of the IETF.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Title           : Definition of the Opus Audio Codec
>>>>>> Author(s)       : J. Valin, K. Vos
>>>>>> Filename        : draft-ietf-codec-opus-00.txt
>>>>>> Pages           : 12
>>>>>> Date            : 2010-10-15
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This document describes the Opus codec, designed for interactive
>>>>>> speech and audio transmission over the Internet.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-codec-opus-00.txt
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
>>>>>> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
>>>>>> Internet-Draft.
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> codec mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> codec mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> codec mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> codec mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> codec mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec