Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com> Wed, 27 November 2013 14:53 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.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 557071ADDAF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 06:53:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 uIwYiUoRS5oT for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 06:53:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 712981ADBF7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 06:53:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1788; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1385563999; x=1386773599; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=uNS3Ljh8kpybrM1D2vhiVP0RujEsPpCnEm4bC8CE0SQ=; b=XZKhEoOj/p4gqa4CMK57uV1SwRz5MbaxHSRYvEd90GqkA3WgF+cMAS8k Mgusc+OkZd++0HnVc5FpLaR5cIDKI4mjGPd+tsTBOa8S3f78sjLK6ajFJ Tpf13HN2A7HGzaIl/MXZH0zZJDZvk7FNj3JYB+g7I0zkKVRJJZ07F/bFF U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArMKAFMGllKtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4U7k4ToEdFnSBeBIBGgEBAQMBAQEBNzQLBQsCAQgYHhAnCyUCBA4Fh3sGDcA9F4Z/hxY6MweDIIETA4VokiySE4Mpgio
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,782,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="284894865"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Nov 2013 14:53:19 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com [173.36.12.76]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rARErInb030342 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:53:18 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.231]) by xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com ([173.36.12.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 08:53:18 -0600
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
Thread-Index: AQHO64BnAeeozn/0CECMWetiwkXodQ==
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:53:17 +0000
Message-ID: <B9742C9B-B3E4-40D6-B1DA-D6E2611D00BD@cisco.com>
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>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.20.249.164]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <6B8A74CF61AFD445ABB5F58EA7CA668C@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
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: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:53:23 -0000

Adam, thought I agree with your meta point about submarine patents existed in the past, I don' think you have this quite right on the details on this one. 

For US patents applications filed prior to June 8, 1995, the term is either 17 years from date of issue or 20 years from earliest priority date, whichever is later. For applications filed after June 8, 1995, the term is 20 years from the earliest priority date.

Given this was filed after 1995, it expires 20 years after the priority date so it expired in 2012. 



On Nov 22, 2013, at 3:54 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>; wrote:

> On 11/22/13 15:19, Maik Merten wrote:
>> It is hard to come up with a scenario where patents covering the original standard and original reference implementation would still be enforceable. 
> 
> As a specific example of such a scenario -- one that is tantalizingly close to the subject at hand -- look here:
> 
> http://www.google.com/patents/US7376184
> 
> 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).
> 
> Yes, this means that they have patent protection on this specific technique for 33 years after its invention.
> 
> In US courts, this is 100% legal and fully enforceable, since they started the process prior to 1995. And "prior to 1995" is exactly when we're talking about.
> 
> /a
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb