Re: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Tue, 23 July 2013 23:08 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D23711E8163 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:08:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2JJZhTbKLR4n for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:08:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qe0-f53.google.com (mail-qe0-f53.google.com [209.85.128.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8F9211E8172 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qe0-f53.google.com with SMTP id f6so1901797qej.26 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=WKCgDmOS3BK0YU/IdjIjjWxYG17HiF3uq95P5eBMn7g=; b=CPMzh+r8HfvU/QEoMCsZq2XY9d5XuqCeFK8To45XHDbl5h5QKakhy9X14my8Ym7FGe hC0NrcaOa888zMbTWd/LjOIwBMUv0cF/JhYeLdk3XqYhbPHYh6gI2tppNea8U57EMFgM Ho8WE5r3Sg17JLmChWfM2HTe7CVdOLirhRZZMfu3017saDqfa3dr4k9/zcayE/Aut7/u MhW1/zKiU6ERUvpBB0XY1cGGoxZn0xjgC41tS+SKzHwSs5cQAdO/jJ/DlmdbFRP7Rk9L ZyyTdKvZnDEgLwIgt6V1Hla07OnrHeSfTZ0cu/Dr1NTz4nqh95UQ7v9TKglv/hJRgW3w zjQA==
X-Received: by 10.229.138.135 with SMTP id a7mr9468157qcu.29.1374620915302; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.49.48.234 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [74.95.2.173]
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxtKtFXM9U3NTseOq7XCdoJ-480wAYyTyFBGZmx0HkUo3g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD5OKxsspqwpEOWkVgDUjY0aJ-taSUAbt3x=GfgZ-ORdZKU+-Q@mail.gmail.com> <51EEB495.4070404@nostrum.com> <51EEFC6B.9090503@bbs.darktech.org> <51EF01E5.7090701@nostrum.com> <CAD5OKxtKtFXM9U3NTseOq7XCdoJ-480wAYyTyFBGZmx0HkUo3g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:07:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBOVLK7k6bm1jmtogRtGi2qkeZPW2FHFHYxwF64ub-DnzA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f6475cf5b97c104e235dffe
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlR4LbAWUJ1poqGY+Yfjwdf9+FLxM9yiL1K3ODeyTagasgh1HOx8z3GypOlm/HWkunkZCmg
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 23:08:42 -0000

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:

> I did not want to blow this out of proportion. All I wanted to point out
> that that licensing terms are missing and until the licensing terms are
> clear this does present a certain risk. I do agree that given current
> active participation of Ericsson in this list, this risk is likely low. One
> other thing that I wanted to mention was that some aspects of the unified
> draft can be adjusted to limit the exposure to the declared IPR.
>

Roman,

That seems like something that would be useful if you could lay out in more
detail.

Best,
-Ekr

Regards,
> _____________
> Roman Shpount
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
>
>>  The chairs have asked us not to cross-post. As this pertains to an IETF
>> IPR declaration, I'll speak to it here.
>>
>> I'll note that your response is a vast overreaction at this juncture, as
>> (1) these are merely applications, not granted patents; and (2) Ericsson
>> has not yet indicated their intentions regarding the licensing terms of any
>> patents that may result.
>>
>> In terms of your two questions: I'm not a laywer, so I'm not able to
>> speak to the applicability of the patents in any authoritative fashion. All
>> that I can really say is that I have a reasonable belief that the claims of
>> these applications, if granted, would apply to the draft in question.
>>
>> I will make one factual observation, without any interpretation, from
>> which you can draw your own conclusions: the independent claims of the
>> patent applications in question do not mention SDP.
>>
>> /a
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/23/13 16:58, cowwoc wrote:
>>
>>
>>     I'm a bit concerned about the optics of what just happened.
>>
>>    - The Working Group has been pushing for the use of SDP since 2011
>>    (see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/mail15.html).
>>    - The first post related to the use of SDP in WebRTC came from
>>    Christer Holmberg of Ericsson on September 14th, 2011.
>>    - One of the Chairs of the Working Group and one of the Specification
>>    editors are from Ericsson.
>>    - There has been a substantial push against the use of SDP by some
>>    mailing list participants, but this was rejected by the Working Group.
>>    - Suddenly we find out that Ericsson has filed two patents related to
>>    the use of SDP in WebRTC and these were filed *after* Ericsson actively
>>    pushed for the use of SDP.
>>
>>     Isn't there a conflict of interest here?
>>      As a Web Developer who doesn't want/need SDP to begin with, I am
>> finding this a bitter pill to swallow. I have no problem with other people
>> using SDP (all the power to them) but, with this IPR discovery, forcing
>> their preference on me will have real-world consequences (no less than had
>> we mandated the use H264 in WebRTC).
>>
>>    1. Do the patents imply that Web Developers will have to pay patents
>>    when deploying application on top of the Browser or Native APIs?
>>    2. Is there a way to retrofit the API so those of us who do not
>>    want/need to use SDP are not forced to license this IPR? For example, the
>>    specification states that the initial offer/answer mechanism is out of
>>    scope. Could we do the same for SDP?
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Gili
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing listrtcweb@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>