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

[Stephen Botzko <[e-mail]>]

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
>