Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended Audio Codecs

[Paul Coverdale <[e-mail]>]

Just to clarify, of the 47 IPR statements against G.722 in the ITU IPR
database, only 13 refer to "vanilla G.722". The rest relate to other
flavours, such as G.722.1, G.722.2 (essentially AMR-WB anyway), G.722-SWB
and various Appendices. Of these 13, 5 were filed in 1986, 1 in 2006 and 7
in 2012.

As for the accompanying ITU-T PLC algorithms, bear in mind that these are
Appendices, and hence not a normative part of G.722. Implementors are free
to do what they like about PLC.


...Paul

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>Of Harald Alvestrand
>Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 9:18 AM
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended
>Audio Codecs
>
>On 01/11/2013 02:17 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> Koen Vos wrote:
>>> In short: there are IPR issues with the PLC required for using G.722
>on the Internet.
>> NO, PLC solutions for G.722 with no IPR issues are publicly available
>> in ITU-T Software Tool Library
>>
>> http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.191-201003-I
>>
>> 8. G.722: The ITU-T 64, 56, and 48 kbit/s wideband speech coding
>> algorithm 73
>>
>> 8.1.3 Functional description of the basic Packet Loss Concealment
>> functionality 80
>>
>> Stéphane
>
>Not speaking to the suitability of G.722, but on the "are there patents"
>issue:
>
>G.191 (the software tools library) has no IPR statements in the ITU-T
>IPR database:
>http://www.itu.int/ipr/IPRSearch.aspx?iprtype=PS
>
>G.722 has 47 such statements against it, the first filed in 1996, the
>last filed in 2012.
>
>Figuring out if any of those patent claims apply to the PLC part,
>whether those claims (if any) also apply to the G.191 implementation,
>and guessing at the reasons why they are filed against G.722 and not
>against G.191, is something I don't want to venture into at all.
>
>I'll leave that to the proponents to sort out.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la
>> part de Koen Vos Envoyé : jeudi 27 décembre 2012 19:34 À : Steve
>> Sokol; Cullen Jennings (fluffy) Cc : [e-mail] Objet : Re:
>> [rtcweb] Call for Consensus Regarding Selecting Recommended Audio
>> Codecs
>>
>> Steve Sokol wrote:
>>> G.722 has no known IPR issues.
>> This is inaccurate.
>>
>> While the basic codec has no such issues, the various Packet Loss
>Concealment methods that were later added to the standard are patented.
>This matters because G.722 uses ADPCM and is unusually sensitive to
>packet loss.  For instance, without PLC the codec will sometimes
>generate a full-scale oscillating output after a loss.  Since a
>traditional PLC doesn't work for this kind of behavior, there was a need
>to invent a PLC specifically for G.722.
>>
>> In short: there are IPR issues with the PLC required for using G.722
>on the Internet.
>>
>> koen.
>>