Re: [codec] Skype IPR disclosure

Rob Glidden <> Mon, 29 March 2010 16:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 839763A6A8B for <>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:40:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.174
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.174 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.750, BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wOYh6wH9Xynf for <>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id A80403A6AD6 for <>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:39:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 27510 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2010 16:40:23 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024;; h=Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=IKaIg/aN7X+tK9t8/k5GOat8o77bXNh2dYnIXnETYDegb5WcxPrxkqn0ggD2lkpj40IyCV5O7HIMx/w2ttefXtHSEKArb0QPOJD43AQGg7e3eXpK2/vVlg2loHu38hOHCw47K1FKhMjt7Ylb0SfqtKdIty/TVqlW9rPKs+Ekrtc= ;
Received: from (rob.glidden@ with plain) by with SMTP; 29 Mar 2010 09:40:23 -0700 PDT
X-Yahoo-SMTP: xflwSnaswBCuS46GvTyhPI4RUJpgPG5UXouB5Vxqo4t9fsHeH0I-
X-YMail-OSG: pBI4oCQVM1mBgZ0hkfgYfs37w1w.oj_YF_dCTgmGip0XbryaL2qQQp_mu772MUc9oAtwX1WMf9woHy9YB_djCE5Ksv7Lav6WbUaSlZdJi032UT6V6r_BBFZp9Y0kmioxeUwzNDIb9imfShonMOjYsmiFw9HrCvnAOBmVwvGkxtHvUT92b.aNerMKZSkhli9jwjm1GCbWSLBNmTiiT_OBZ0bGjSLX7qn0Cm0jx3d1PxhrYdo7HQHkX.8nMSwjRrVhg64rUSlmp7YBtpuRJf.VOE2YW8FOj0mm0V9JAearAnt2yxe0pQSNYxk-
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:40:22 -0700
From: Rob Glidden <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: stephen botzko <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:40:07 -0000

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.


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