Re: [rtcweb] H.264 IPR disclosures (or persistent lack thereof)

["DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[e-mail]>]

If you are following that interpretation of the rules, there are equivalent VP8 documents against which declarations need to be made. The Google and Nokia disclosures against RFC 6386 do not meet your interpretation of the IPR rules, because they have not been declared against the specific IETF work area (normally but not necessarily identified by an RFC or internet draft). Indeed they have not been declared against any IETF work at all.

Like Stefan, I do not believe these documents force a disclosure. 

But if you want to challenge that, then the appeal route is defined.

And as I say, I believe noone has hidden anything anywhere. There has been plenty of mail on this list and in other documents that tell you where to find the IPR disclosures in other organisations, most of which have a more formal legal status than IETF.

Regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ron
> Sent: 13 December 2013 03:34
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.264 IPR disclosures (or persistent 
> lack thereof)
> 
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 03:03:12AM +0000, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> > Well lets turn the question around then.
> > 
> > Which document contains the requirement that makes H.264 an 
> essential 
> > part of its content, such that you would make an IPR 
> declaration against it?
> 
> Including but not limited to ?:
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=webrtc+draft+h264
> 
> > And if you think this applies to H.264, where is the related VP8 
> > disclosure, which following your reasoning, is also required?
> 
>  However, the requirement for an IPR disclosure is satisfied 
> by a blanket  statement of the IPR discloser's willingness to 
> license all of its potential  IPR meeting the requirements of 
> Section 6.6 (and either Section 6.1.1 or
>  6.1.2) to implementers of an IETF specification on a 
> royalty-free basis ...
> 
> 
> Which is not to say at all that I'm arguing there shouldn't 
> also be further disclosures there too if you can point to 
> something that says the above doesn't already cover it.
> 
> Does that answer your questions, or are we going to do "Mom! 
> He hit me!!"
> next?
> 
>   Ron
> 
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ron
> > > Sent: 13 December 2013 02:44
> > > To: [e-mail]
> > > Subject: [rtcweb] H.264 IPR disclosures (or persistent 
> lack thereof)
> > > 
> > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:30:32AM +0000, DRAGE, Keith 
> (Keith) wrote:
> > > > If Ron can justify such a statement, the he is also in
> > > defiance of the
> > > > IETF IPR rules, because he himself is required to make a
> > > disclosure. 
> > > > The requirement is to disclose if you know of..., not 
> if you own.
> > > 
> > > Maybe you should actually go read the Note Well RFCs before you 
> > > engage in "No U" argumentation that just makes it look like you 
> > > haven't.
> > > 
> > > If I owned, or worked for or on behalf of anyone who 
> owned IPR that 
> > > was relevant to the work here, I indeed would have disclosed it 
> > > according to the obligations noted there.
> > > 
> > > Since I don't, and I don't actually know specific details 
> of which 
> > > patents might apply here (beyond reading of assertions there is a 
> > > pool, and of court cases that are being pursued over 
> them, and that 
> > > many of the people pushing hard for the adoption of H.264 are 
> > > holders of them) - I am indeed discharging the only 
> obligation upon 
> > > me that I SHOULD point and wave.
> > > 
> > > > But I believe Stefan is correct. Neither IETF or its
> > > contributors has
> > > > not written a document specifying the H.264 codec as an
> > > essential part
> > > > of its operation, therefore making a disclosure is not 
> required. 
> > > > If IETF progresses to making a statement that incorporation of
> > > an H.264
> > > > implementation forms an essential part of a webrtc
> > > specification, then
> > > > disclosure in IETF will be required.
> > > 
> > >  "Covers or may ultimately Cover a Contribution"
> > > 
> > > I believe is the language used.
> > > 
> > >  "unless ... rejected from consideration before a 
> disclosure could 
> > > reasonably
> > >   be submitted."
> > > 
> > > And I'm pretty sure we're well past the time of "could 
> reasonably", 
> > > unless your position is that we should now immediately reject it 
> > > from consideration?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > ISO/IEC JTC1 does have a specification for H.264, and I 
> am led to 
> > > > believe disclosures of IPR have been made there. Noone 
> involved in 
> > > > this discussion as far as I am aware is hiding H.264 
> IPR. Again I 
> > > > believe as a third party, you are also allowed to make IPR
> > > disclosures
> > > > there (certainly every other SDO I know of allows third
> > > party disclosures).
> > > > 
> > > > And before this degenerates into a discussion of what
> > > people want the
> > > > IETF IPR rules to become rather than what they are, take
> > > that to the
> > > > IETF discussion list.
> > > 
> > >  "Contributors must disclose IPR meeting the description in this 
> > > section;
> > >   there are no exceptions to this rule."
> > > 
> > > Nobody is arguing for a change to the rules here.  It's 
> the blatant 
> > > disregard for them (or perhaps you are trying to subtly 
> demonstrate 
> > > that it's simply ignorance of them) which is what 
> concerns me at the 
> > > present time.
> > > 
> > > I'd prefer to just see this remedied by the people who the 
> > > obligation falls upon than to make an example of them before the 
> > > wider IETF.
> > > If it goes that far I would assume it will be with a call for 
> > > sanctions.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Stephan may still be correct that there is some sneaky back door 
> > > that people can hide behind here - but if there is one, all that 
> > > you've proved in these statements is that you don't know 
> what it is 
> > > either.
> > > 
> > >   Ron
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rtcweb mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> > > 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>