Re: [codec] Skype IPR disclosure

[Rob Glidden <[e-mail]>]

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