Re: [codec] Skype IPR disclosure

[stephen botzko <[e-mail]>]

I saw one person asking questions, to my mind that is not the same as "the
license terms are unacceptable to the community".  The jury is still out on
that one.

Stephen Botzko
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Rob Glidden <[e-mail]>wrote:

> Stephen:
>
> Exactly, well said, this is the point of my original email.
>
> To restate original email, the licensing terms on this particular
> disclosure are questioned, and unless there is a specific reason provided to
> use the particular IPR, there would be no apparent need to use it.
>
> Rob
>
>
> stephen botzko wrote:
>
> BCP 79 specifically says "No patent search is required" either by
> individuals or by the working group.
>
> If you know of blocking patents held by a third party, you should simply
> file the third-party disclosure, there is no need to discuss it on the
> list.  If you don't know of blocking patents, then there is nothing to
> discuss.
>
> So I stand by my assertion -
>
> The only case where examining the details of the patents in an IPR
> disclosure is ever necessary  is when (1) the license terms are unacceptable
> to the community, *and* (2) we need to use *some* of the referenced
> technology in the standard.
>
> Stephen Botzko
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Rob Glidden <[e-mail]>wrote:
>
>> Even if the licensing terms are acceptable, offered IPR may well depend on
>> blocking patents owned by others.
>>
>> All the more likely in the case of more recent and narrowly-defined
>> technologies.
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>> stephen botzko wrote:
>>
>> >>> Stephan Wenger worte....
>> I continue to believe that it is within the IETF policy (and, arguably,
>> within common sense) to let people decide for themselves whether they want
>> to participate in discussions concerning third party patent matter, and,
>> independently of the outcome of this decision, still participate in the WG
>> (for example on purely technical subjects).  My fear is that, by exposing
>> folks to patent numbers and handy hyperlinks to patent material, you take
>> some of this choice away.
>>
>> So I believe that both “willful ignorance” and “avoidance [of exposure to
>> patent numbers]” are both within the language and the spirit of the IETF’s
>> patent policy.
>> >>>
>> I agree completely (also with  your reply to Marc).
>>
>> In practice, we begin by individually reviewing the IPR disclosures are
>> they announced.  99.9% of the time, the commercial terms are completely
>> acceptable, so there is no reason to do anything further.
>>
>> The only case where examining the details of the patents in an IPR is ever
>> necessary  is when (1) the terms are unacceptable to the community, *and*(2) we need to use
>> *some* of the referenced technology in the standard.  Even in that case,
>> it is best if the work is structured in such a way that so people can opt
>> out.
>>
>> In this particular situation, there has been no decision yet to use the
>> Skype contribution in the standard, so there is no reason to start diving
>> into this IPR disclosure are all right now.
>>
>> Stephen Botzko
>>
>>
>>
>
>