Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband Audio Codec WG

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Tue, 02 June 2009 00:12 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5809C3A6802 for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 17:12:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 25mi7YSBCC2q for <dispatch@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 17:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 733D93A67FE for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 17:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.41,287,1241395200"; d="scan'208";a="314620202"
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Jun 2009 00:12:12 +0000
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n520CCj5018951; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 17:12:12 -0700
Received: from [192.168.4.177] (rcdn-fluffy-8711.cisco.com [10.99.9.18]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n520CBta012254; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 00:12:12 GMT
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
To: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
In-Reply-To: <5B65DEDD-2877-41A3-9311-2BD93E39B510@standardstrack.com>
Impp: xmpp:cullenfluffyjennings@jabber.org
References: <C6456D5B.3DA1%hsinnrei@adobe.com> <5B65DEDD-2877-41A3-9311-2BD93E39B510@standardstrack.com>
Message-Id: <A4F1EE42-9962-40B1-99C9-7A8577D36744@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 18:12:11 -0600
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=734; t=1243901532; x=1244765532; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; z=From:=20Cullen=20Jennings=20<fluffy@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[dispatch]=20Proposal=20to=20form=20Int ernet=20Wideband=20Audio=20Codec=20WG |Sender:=20; bh=ywKTBmA04hAi1Am4a+TngcUJteRhyzDSW3+6BTOaufo=; b=acI8C24c6B1ESrEbM1X+bsTQ6gK+0ekLCVAr0LCav52XttYwAT9QEgYsOn GRdWhv6FPCvqVEC2DYOCaTjey27IxgOkYaBrTh4pmltVJ/c2uglhz3ZtGRSG MOSaV4vMHz;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=fluffy@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; );
Cc: Henry Sinnreich <hsinnrei@adobe.com>, dispatch@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Proposal to form Internet Wideband Audio Codec WG
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:12:27 -0000

On Jun 1, 2009, at 4:02 PM, Eric Burger wrote:

> I again have to point out, as I did with iLBC, that just because  
> something is Open Source and submitted Without IPR and, as proposed  
> here, done in a non-IPR regime, does NOT necessarily mean the result  
> is without encumbrances.
>
> Since I like to keep people away from trouble, I won't quote  
> existing IPR. Let's look at some expired IPR instead.
>
> If your proposed codec used LPC, it would violate a Philips patent.  
> For that matter, it would step on a handful of TI patents.

That's an interesting assertion given LPC was published in the late  
60's and research goes back earlier than that. Would you like to  
comment on "valid patents" :-)