Re: [rtcweb] Counting NOs (Re: Straw Poll on Nokia mincing)

[David Singer <[e-mail]>]

On Dec 20, 2013, at 11:54 , Ted Hardie <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 11:29 AM, David Singer <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> >> VP8 is formally *unlicensable* at the IETF.
> >
> > I don't believe that is true.  The IETF *formally* takes no position or
> > makes no claims about the validity or applicability of any declaration.
> 
> There is a formal declaration registered at the IETF of unlicensable IPR.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what "formal" means here,

It’s not hearsay, or an email on a list, or a verbal statement.  It’s a submission using the ‘formal’ means provided by the IETF to make IPR statements.  That’s what I mean by ‘formal’ — it uses the formal channel and formats for making such statements.


> so let me restate this:
> 
> There is an IPR declaration related to one of the technologies under consideration by the working group.  That IPR declaration asserts a set of patents covers the technology.  That IPR declaration also states that no license will be provided by that patent holder for that technology.
> 
> In the IETF, the validity of the assertion is not assessed by the IETF-as-an-organization; it is assessed by the individuals who make up the working group, as part of their analysis of how to build the standard.  
> 
> For cases where the rights are freely available, the assessment might be short or absent, because the result is a no-op.  For cases where it is not, the individuals making up the working group conduct whatever analysis they believe best.  The individuals making up the working group are not required to accept assertions at face value, though that certainly could be their choice of analytical method.
> 
> We then try, as a working group made up of individuals, to come to consensus on what to do.
> 
> I hope this clarifies both the state and the process, but, as always, reference to the relevant BCPs will give a fuller picture.

Thank you.

I still see a significant problem with person A deciding that they don’t {like | believe | recognize | something} an IPR declaration, and can ask to make the underlying technology mandatory to implement for persons B, C, D, who might not see things the same way.

The point of ‘formal’ is that none of A thru D here can pretend that there was no information.

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.