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

[Jonathan Rosenberg <[e-mail]>]

<With Skype hat on>

No.

Since the Opus codec is a product of the IETF it would make no sense for 
an individual company to trademark the name of an IETF output.

-Jonathan R.

On 10/20/2010 2:02 AM, Christian Hoene wrote:
> Dear Jonathan,
>
> is Skype registering Opus as trademark?
>
> 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 Jonathan Rosenberg
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 2:43 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [codec] I-D Action:draft-ietf-codec-opus-00.txt
>
> IETF has a long history of standards with names - ICE, SIP, POP, IMAP,
> etc. These are also acronyms, but increasingly the acronyms are highly
> contrived and are basically names (DECADE, ENUM, SALUD) and in some
> cases just names (Sieve). However, IETF has not ever filed for
> trademarks on any of these, and I see absolutely no reason to start now.
>
> -Jonathan R.
>
>
>
> On 10/19/2010 1:33 PM, Jean-Marc Valin 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
>

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   SkypeID: jdrosen
Chief Technology Strategist                    Mobile: [phone]
Skype                                          SkypeIn: [phone]
[e-mail]                              http://www.skype.com
[e-mail]                            http://www.jdrosen.net