Re: [codec] WGLC of draft-ietf-codec-opus-07

Peter Saint-Andre <> Fri, 22 July 2011 02:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFE8D21F865B for <>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 19:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.519
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.220, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HuIoVMd-gsgf for <>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 19:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 660D621F8620 for <>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 19:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from squire.local (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 621AB4005A; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 20:39:59 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 20:39:11 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jehan Pagès <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [codec] WGLC of draft-ietf-codec-opus-07
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 02:39:13 -0000

[no hats]

On 7/21/11 12:27 PM, Jehan Pagès wrote:
> Hi,
> I know that we are not supposed to discuss patents issues on this list
> (according to an email on 25th of May by Cullen Jennings).
> But considering that Opus is closing last call, and I have no idea
> where else I could get the information (Cullen's email mentioned
> possibility of creating a new list for this, but it seems it never get
> created, or else not announced here), I am sorry by advance for
> asking. But what is the status of the IPR claims of patents which were
> issued on previous drafts?

Hi Jehan,

As I understand it (IANAL etc.), in general the IETF and its working 
groups do not take any official position on the validity or 
appropriateness of IPR claims made with regard to IETF specifications 
(including Internet-Drafts under discussion by a working group), nor on 
the licensing terms associated with such IPR claims.

According to IETF rules, individuals who are aware of IPR claims related 
to work in which they are participating (e.g., as document editors or 
list discussants) are required to state that they are aware of the 
existence of such claims (which might even be claims made by third 
parties not involved in the work) -- not necessarily to disclose the 
nature of the IPR itself, but at least to state awareness of the 
existence of such claims.

Also according to IETF rules, the working group chairs are required to 
make the group aware of notifications and disclosures that are submitted 
in relation to the work happening in the group. The purpose of drawing 
this information to the attention of the working group participants is 
to allow each person to make their own determination of the validity of 
the IPR claims, and to assess the license terms that
are presented.

I hope that this message helps to clarify the role of the working group, 
and the responsibilities of each working group participant, in relation 
to IPR claims.


Peter Saint-Andre