Re: [codec] Skype IPR disclosure

stephen botzko <> Mon, 29 March 2010 17:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 948FD3A6AC9 for <>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:27:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.113
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.113 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.019, BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HUQGwZNILNqA for <>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:27:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 617443A6834 for <>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:27:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gxk9 with SMTP id 9so1728993gxk.8 for <>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:received:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=3wwcp9vOc3wPac1gax3jLqPX6CeWWbofbWmAhIlL+ig=; b=HclFYuvZJXWT6YsNr0yHXsQFWw18qi19b3hqvrouXeJ3wFIg18mjMagr/rz5/4VbjI bUVtM2tg+u6g3zjppyLl5Sw4pCWRiaelRDnXUgD3c8mh2WDuFNTuK9+YDpT2aMR232Vg jhZSBD0DCwRO3bK0cX0N3+jW5MVUAWHFVne4E=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=IVXmGxCESwVEML+cE8FloR+Ac9GJc2B1lBxtAjbKmWiRXh2PQFqWBF/KTy00t6FjJm Yc6c5sWOukTbe+4ZZxu9hKVW8PiKHLlTSsrXf+vMyHzx0nwcWAhKkwQOU5C5mk4fclBH EWM4VwetfKnMYBnBW+InlsTFxKIaZaZ7XStM8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:28:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:28:17 -0400
Received: by with SMTP id 34mr3259119wae.108.1269883697721; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:28:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
From: stephen botzko <>
To: Rob Glidden <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016e64cd24cb5b0980482f3d609"
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 17:27:56 -0000

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

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 <>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