Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com> Sat, 23 November 2013 09:20 UTC

Return-Path: <maikmerten@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84A691AE226 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Nov 2013 01:20:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TGRCbvupmYNp for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Nov 2013 01:20:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ea0-x230.google.com (mail-ea0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 358261AE175 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Nov 2013 01:20:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ea0-f176.google.com with SMTP id h14so1002254eaj.21 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Nov 2013 01:20:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mDb/91kjHgoMsxVBCIt1UOJ0j/ekNr7w3e9ESRQGHtw=; b=wC68OFtEb/9pkOpXKI7OXL7r+/LiDuCfLyA1NktX4y986qXWpocK+7OFU78/kI/cH6 6mINJTRPyNWAAIfnZIqtg0mNV209IUbn0timS0mN4pAcEnA/gVM7pWxM58020pV7tRHi GktIhyXSnJpB1/1UjN7Yw7G6BMsUu5XGAO31nIFHf3GKKHPprX/pIvEcFqtZzl4wrwpJ LVamnLIp6MuNBgHYDqvYgqTUUKGMyjHXRm5UHsA8L8e6DfrJe3OVmrT3T+rdm0rINAqq J4fXhKoSqp95qDsGRnYW8clh68+DunAj4OzUBXdFj/sJI2DfAEUCWFQEc27+LA83G8L+ NzUA==
X-Received: by 10.14.149.139 with SMTP id x11mr3213751eej.35.1385198439708; Sat, 23 Nov 2013 01:20:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.109] (port-92-201-35-71.dynamic.qsc.de. [92.201.35.71]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id o47sm83720623eem.21.2013.11.23.01.20.37 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 23 Nov 2013 01:20:38 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52907363.4090003@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 10:20:35 +0100
From: Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA8AD7ED@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <E62E1CAF-546D-4A0E-9339-D03D6C0BC1AE@apple.com> <528EBAB0.2010906@librevideo.org> <D125BF97-73BE-4591-8C70-30C03974CC78@apple.com> <528EBD4C.8070504@librevideo.org> <CAOJ7v-2zCZk4cMh1MbpXGHCELJMJppLVEX9CwPG3VNtDfDv4qw@mail.gmail.com> <02B96CE8-A6D9-4288-B052-FB54B07447FB@apple.com> <528FCA68.2070309@googlemail.com> <528FE08B.1020908@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <528FE08B.1020908@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 09:20:49 -0000

Am 22.11.2013 23:54, schrieb Adam Roach:
> Read the first paragraph of the description. In layman's terms, it says
> "even though this patent is being issued in 2008, we claim that it was
> invented in January of 1992." And with a priority date prior to 1995,
> this means that they have protection for seventeen years from the date
> of issuance (i.e., until 2025).

As far as I can see the priority date for such filings does matter, too. 
How would such a patent apply to a set of algorithms described in a ca. 
1988 reference implementation?

I for sure see how this refiling mechanism could be trouble for MPEG-1 
Part 2 and H.263. We won't get a reliable answer on an engineering 
mailing list and I feel that actual legal resources may need to be 
employed to get a decent risk-assessment.


Maik