Re: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 23 July 2013 22:08 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.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 9382011E8150 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 W6BcwEL4hMEP for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-x229.google.com (mail-oa0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75AD911E814E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id n10so12748354oag.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=KtO329zA7O80HbjMK+XvyhGzHw/3Oe7HqQ8pQH+jFx8=; b=tTvbkkgQXxZIKpXBCZjddlUGgr/vz1aVK4p/0Gkh9uNEvPhXsF3hed6Nc7scvhQ3d3 1t24Mjl6GjwH5hv2Er617jkgd2SSezUncJoMwZhLUSDzKSU7XbqWjGuY8W3PG+eqg3ls msEXVPpSGZsd2XWOaID2gV+qdFtaNnPNZsy22agSXiReKcIoopf8xCQtI+KtUru0vkoV 42Ck6XsIdKTVcfkMFe8J3tIkTJwBO4GqM+uPssMZ9JXZes9bFaTWyXkfqdo1J/kVrELc QR7K/gGwtua7mD9c/+cytl4ivq2dWC7jMPxhxbqFjO+sD4vKERAKgaev1vWLg5LW2rjV bNXw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.164.167 with SMTP id yr7mr88381igb.22.1374617313293; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:08:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.29.202 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:08:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51EEFC6B.9090503@bbs.darktech.org>
References: <CAD5OKxsspqwpEOWkVgDUjY0aJ-taSUAbt3x=GfgZ-ORdZKU+-Q@mail.gmail.com> <51EEB495.4070404@nostrum.com> <51EEFC6B.9090503@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:08:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMBwBP2p5UG95h7rY9CAwUpXpRiLKjne-bEn0pX2gooS7w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0122a7fca93cdf04e235084c
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [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 22:08:36 -0000

Hi Gili,

I've snipped some of this, but I want to note that it is not really
possible for Adam to clarify this at the moment; like the rest of us, he
will have to wait for the folks who filed the patent to clarify the
situation.   He is listed in the IPR declaration only because he brought
the patent to the attention of the IETF, not because he is an inventor or
assignee.

The IETF patent process has already pointed out (in RFC 4879); please check
it for the next steps.

thanks,

Ted Hardie

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:58 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

>
> Hi Adam,
>
>     I'm a bit concerned about the optics of what just happened.
>
>    - The Working Group has been pushing for the use of SDP since 2011
>    (see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/mail15.html).
>    - The first post related to the use of SDP in WebRTC came from
>    Christer Holmberg of Ericsson on September 14th, 2011.
>    - One of the Chairs of the Working Group and one of the Specification
>    editors are from Ericsson.
>    - There has been a substantial push against the use of SDP by some
>    mailing list participants, but this was rejected by the Working Group.
>    - Suddenly we find out that Ericsson has filed two patents related to
>    the use of SDP in WebRTC and these were filed *after* Ericsson actively
>    pushed for the use of SDP.
>
>     Isn't there a conflict of interest here?
>      As a Web Developer who doesn't want/need SDP to begin with, I am
> finding this a bitter pill to swallow. I have no problem with other people
> using SDP (all the power to them) but, with this IPR discovery, forcing
> their preference on me will have real-world consequences (no less than had
> we mandated the use H264 in WebRTC).
>
>    1. Do the patents imply that Web Developers will have to pay patents
>    when deploying application on top of the Browser or Native APIs?
>    2. Is there a way to retrofit the API so those of us who do not
>    want/need to use SDP are not forced to license this IPR? For example, the
>    specification states that the initial offer/answer mechanism is out of
>    scope. Could we do the same for SDP?
>
> Thank you,
> Gili
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>