[rtcweb] Unified plan IPR

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Tue, 23 July 2013 16:22 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EB6211E82E0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pTYfTKia-Vtm for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:22:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f54.google.com (mail-wg0-f54.google.com [74.125.82.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06CD511E82D9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:22:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f54.google.com with SMTP id n12so622165wgh.9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=KDXiQGsi99e89ta9X69/x5ScHrL7ElnWC+oZ8hX+VbQ=; b=OK0lbBJ039QmopbExWyI9XLmZ58/b/9odrpIA/qi2FlDNk2YS7xlxF5fQhFpKs9JhK 2+fUwGMoaKBYQK9KGYRa+J5LYACP5qzIOa2j2+L+7W/RQ9WVSvVgNEjapbRtIZ9Eavyb ZC9z/U5kEQ3fLdB3vqKTnfeqXo+Y+789OB2hUWnxxpyEA8cOBvawYsJFLxsVBu7BdxVO 9Wk1GRSu+JDIKvqj4o4UHFLvC7o4K0aHNTGv85enscz6EpwXCYicLc8Ml4PO0Hl9/Qmv xLibaoLjtpM1+ggpDHwIb4Hqn1C8ui8+rnQ360NON/0UCCwS4x0BO1653WSvSzVgckb9 zF5Q==
X-Received: by 10.180.182.229 with SMTP id eh5mr22387475wic.63.1374596532636; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x22a.google.com (mail-we0-x22a.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c03::22a]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id r8sm7042117wiz.5.2013.07.23.09.22.11 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f170.google.com with SMTP id w60so1167994wes.1 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.85.6 with SMTP id d6mr33344187wiz.47.1374596530407; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.221.202 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 12:22:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxsspqwpEOWkVgDUjY0aJ-taSUAbt3x=GfgZ-ORdZKU+-Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0442808ee7904104e2303130
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn+vTP80Zs4+ETVQf2Ow2Qk+R2kXwh1OkHI31wu7jG1FMBfqXhgWA2KwWKk7iBXsMvl8+Rp
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org, mmusic@ietf.org, tim panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
Subject: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:22:21 -0000

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 <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:

>  On 7/23/13 09:20, tim panton wrote:
>
> On 23 Jul 2013, at 14:00, Stefan HÃ¥kansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> 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
>