Re: [codec] IPR Disclosure: France Telecom's Statement about IPR related to RFC 6716

Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> Sun, 20 January 2013 10:15 UTC

Received-SPF: pass (mail243-ch1: domain of stewe.org designates 157.56.240.133 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.240.133; envelope-from=stewe@stewe.org; helo=BL2PRD0710HT004.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
From: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
To: Ron <ron@debian.org>, "codec@ietf.org" <codec@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [codec] IPR Disclosure: France Telecom's Statement about IPR related to RFC 6716
Thread-Index: AQHN9hm9tNDnPtlshEuniheYoKSWvZhRDMWAgAEGBYA=
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 10:15:53 +0000
Message-ID: <FDBFA77C7400C74F87BC297393B53E3532B63AA6@BL2PRD0710MB349.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130119193759.GN31373@audi.shelbyville.oz>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <90775D48DEEED54FB9CECAD75F57C4D1@namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [codec] IPR Disclosure: France Telecom's Statement about IPR related to RFC 6716
Precedence: list

Hi Ron,
Please see inline.
Stephan

On 1.19.2013 20:37 , "Ron" <ron@debian.org> wrote:

>On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 02:50:52AM -0500, Monty Montgomery wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 2:38 AM, Hoene <hoene@uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
>> > Oops,
>> >
>> > it covers the SILK part of Opus and it valid for another three year
>>:-(
>> > I think it is time to start working on Opus V2.0.
>> 
>> It's hardly time to panic :-P  We'll review it like the others that
>> have come in.
>
>Did we ever hear back from Huawei about their uncertainty over their
>rushed last-minute declaration of the patent they bought?  I thought
>they'd promised to follow up on that ...

Yes, we did hear back.  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1741/

For context, we asked for additional info regarding the granted patent, as
their initial declaration was against a published application which, at
the time of the declaration, was already an issued patent.

Let me also reiterate that, IMO, the declaration was both voluntary
(which, by definition, would mean it was timely), as well as timely even
if it were not made voluntarily.  It was voluntary because Huawei
established that none of their IETF participants knew about that patent
(as it was a recent acquisition, and the inventor is not an IETF
participant).  It was IMO timely, because they made their declaration
within a few months after they acquired the patent.

>
>
>It is mildly amusing to see the people who objected to this group forming,
>who claimed there was no expertise here to produce a competitive codec,
>and who persist in objecting to its RF status, seem to have such amazing
>trouble not only understanding this codec, but also their _own_ patents
>and what they actually apply to ...
>
>I'd certainly be embarrassed to be consistently that wrong about
>everything.
>
> 'Oops' indeed.
>  Ron
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>codec mailing list
>codec@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>

[codec] IPR Disclosure: France Telecom's Statemen… IETF Secretariat
Re: [codec] IPR Disclosure: France Telecom's Stat… Hoene
Re: [codec] IPR Disclosure: France Telecom's Stat… Monty Montgomery
Re: [codec] IPR Disclosure: France Telecom's Stat… Ron
Re: [codec] IPR Disclosure: France Telecom's Stat… Stephan Wenger
Re: [codec] IPR Disclosure: France Telecom's Stat… Ron
Re: [codec] IPR Disclosure: France Telecom's Stat… Jean-Marc Valin
Re: [codec] IPR Disclosure: France Telecom's Stat… Hoene
Re: [codec] IPR Disclosure: France Telecom's Stat… Jean-Marc Valin