Re: [codec] Skype IPR disclosure

"Michael Ramalho (mramalho)" <> Wed, 24 March 2010 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10BCD3A6982 for <>; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.98
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.98 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dkvTAGIRC9lo for <>; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 033413A6A36 for <>; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results:; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEABvFqUutJV2Y/2dsb2JhbACbHXOmMJkJhH4Egx4
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.51,301,1267401600"; d="scan'208";a="95647619"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 24 Mar 2010 14:56:42 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o2OEugpm019276; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:56:42 GMT
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:56:42 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:56:41 -0500
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [codec] Skype IPR disclosure
Thread-Index: AcrK0fIMEZWcg1kEQl6wJlvg7iFMBQAjobFQ
References: <> <>
From: "Michael Ramalho (mramalho)" <>
To: "Kevin P. Fleming" <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Mar 2010 14:56:42.0426 (UTC) FILETIME=[370C31A0:01CACB62]
Cc: Codec WG <>
Subject: Re: [codec] Skype IPR disclosure
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:56:26 -0000

Huh #1? A change from <null> to <anything_non_null> is a "change".

Huh #2? Re: " I am glad to see that they've chosen the [codec WG?]
expected royalty-free patent-non-assert licensing path."

>From I read: "Skype is currently
contemplating the licensing terms. It is the intention that there will
be a royalty free license option available to companies implementing the

I see no commitment/choice to royalty-free in this statement; I am
fairly sure that no lawyer would either.

Perhaps the statement was updated since the last time you read it?

Huh #3? Re: "commercial terms"

>From I see no mention of any
commercial terms other than licensing intent (e.g., support costs,
indemnification, etc.).

Do you have information other than that you are basing these
comments on?

Michael Ramalho

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf
Of Kevin P. Fleming
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 5:43 PM
Cc: Codec WG
Subject: Re: [codec] Skype IPR disclosure

Stephan Wenger wrote:
> Folks,
> The secretariat has just posted Skype's expected IPR disclosure
> to the SILK codec draft:
>  Relative to their previous statement (
>, the commercial terms have
> changed, and the new disclosure lists a number of additional patent
> applications.  (The exercise of determining whether the patent
> applications belong to the same patent family is left to the esteemed
> reader.  Same goes for the interpretation of the commercial terms :-)

Well, the previous disclosure didn't actually include any commercial
licensing terms, so I'm not sure the term 'changed' is warranted :-) I
am glad to see that they've chosen the expected royalty-free
patent-non-assert licensing path.

Kevin P. Fleming
Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
skype: kpfleming | jabber:
Check us out at &
codec mailing list