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

[Bjoern Hoehrmann <[e-mail]>]

* Ted Hardie wrote:
>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.

A more proper phrasing would be "The holder does not commit to provide
reasonable licenses to all implementers". It might do just that, it is
just that when the holder does not, nobody can say "but you promised!"

I think the distinction is important because some might find the tech-
nology in question is available under (for their individual situation)
better license terms than other options before the Working Group. They
might be discouraged from exploring that possibility if they think the
technology is non-licensable.

I would not encourage that, but as there are non-royality-free options
under consideration, people should pick their poison carefully, if any.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[e-mail] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: [phone] · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/