Re: [Rmt] Posting of IPR Disclosure related to QUALCOMM Incorporated's Statement about IPR related to RFC 5170

Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inrialpes.fr> Tue, 10 November 2009 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <vincent.roca@inrialpes.fr>
X-Original-To: rmt@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rmt@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C36A628C162 for <rmt@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:56:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.174
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.174 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 nCEdZ71fQ0LU for <rmt@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:56:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93A123A6AFB for <rmt@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:56:45 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,716,1249250400"; d="scan'208";a="39874224"
Received: from host-144-134.meeting.ietf.org ([133.93.144.134]) by mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 10 Nov 2009 16:57:09 +0100
Message-ID: <4AF98D53.9010402@inrialpes.fr>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:57:07 +0100
From: Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inrialpes.fr>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "rmt@ietf.org" <rmt@ietf.org>
References: <C71BE810.8A1B%luby@qualcomm.com> <4AF6F220.7070705@inrialpes.fr>
In-Reply-To: <4AF6F220.7070705@inrialpes.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Luby, Michael" <luby@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [Rmt] Posting of IPR Disclosure related to QUALCOMM Incorporated's Statement about IPR related to RFC 5170
X-BeenThere: rmt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Reliable Multicast Transport <rmt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt>, <mailto:rmt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rmt>
List-Post: <mailto:rmt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rmt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt>, <mailto:rmt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:56:46 -0000

Everybody,

With Mike, we discussed the IPR topic face to face. Here is the result:

Mike explained that RFC3453 is not Prior Art, because the Patent Application
20080034273 that contains Claims 25-29 is a follow-up of patents filled
earlier. And these patents (e.g. Patent 6,307,487) already describe in their
Specification the possibility of having "multiple symbols per packet to 
improve
the decoder erasure recovery capabilities when dealing with small objects".

NB: not being a lawyer, I have no opinion on whether this argument is valid
    or not in this particular case.

Mike confirmed that in case a revision of RFC 5170 is published without
this technique, QC would issue a new IPR Disclosure without the "additional
10 patents", namely:
    6,307,487; 6,320,520; 6,373,406; 6,614,366; 7,057,534; 7,233,264;
    20080034273; 20080180284; 7,418,651; and 20090031199
Similarly, a codec implementing RFC 5170 without the above technique
will not infringe any of the "additional 10 patents".

Regards,

    Vincent