Re: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR

Adam Roach <> Tue, 23 July 2013 22:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5759511E814F for <>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.549
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EUTGQ7SdPeUh for <>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BEFD11E815B for <>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:21:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r6NMLUMb046775 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 23 Jul 2013 17:21:31 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 17:21:25 -0500
From: Adam Roach <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cowwoc <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030705050605070309010906"
Received-SPF: pass ( is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 22:21:56 -0000

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 

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.


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
>   * 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 list