[rtcweb] Unified plan IPR

[Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>]

Changing the title and the mailing list to the more appropriate.

The situation would be a bit clearer if patent holders were to provide the
licensing policy regarding this IPR release. Given that Ericsson is
actively involved in this working group, I think it would be reasonable to
ask them for this.

Regards,
_____________
Roman Shpount


On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  On 7/23/13 09:20, tim panton wrote:
>
> On 23 Jul 2013, at 14:00, Stefan Håkansson LK <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>  On 7/23/13 5:03 AM, Justin Uberti wrote:
>
>  With the compromise reached in the Unified Plan document,
>
>  Presumably http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-roach-mmusic-unified-plan-00.txt
>
>  I'll draw folks attention to this IPR claim
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2141/
>
> What does that mean in practice?
>
>
>
> In practice, it has very little effect.
>
> For those of you unfamiliar with IETF IPR policy, it is documented in RFC
> 3979:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3979.txt
>
> The disclosure Tim points to is made pursuant to section 6.1.3 of that
> document. During the course of developing the unified plan, the
> applications that are mentioned in that disclosure were brought to my
> attention.
>
> The reason it has little effect in practice is that the independent claims
> would appear to cover every plan proposal to date (plan a, plan b, unified
> plan, and even all of the "no plan" variations). Consequently, it does not
> benefit any one approach over the others.
>
> /a
>