Re: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR
cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Tue, 23 July 2013 22:15 UTC
Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
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 6A98F11E815B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 MElqi4FPsfRm for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:15:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-f173.google.com (mail-qc0-f173.google.com [209.85.216.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC74711E8150 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f173.google.com with SMTP id l10so4635676qcy.4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=RZooyMQaDOSgpv+K5GS4HQllWSKaV1MqRUZgVfMW8ZA=; b=Hn79SJYhN2RABZVtda1ATsWN/iAUVkps/H+bjt78kbeucEKBnMERBx0BZlIYu/NSq6 ECr1vorZiXZQhwr3utohR4WAlQVXRNBrPY6nwPy9Zt8/8N2h5G+7/6DZ6ZlsTXsafLtk nMq7MHI1lqkmp1fk3FUNyXorZ+8VlL/4GlLVKR67agI21r4PnW3O8AGxLJ0Lt8XAdTdX ZVYIbouVPRFLefJRlcNSMTi/xuvd0XVSJEoJF+R0t3q+GStUmdgN+CuAhUOeMzr5J7q2 hSrz7Q6qzTOMbW1h3eoR9A7JRPxRf2DgYeXiNlUssrthMKhEJpRCTAvwVuXKWhacnND+ 0W3A==
X-Received: by 10.49.58.70 with SMTP id o6mr39909205qeq.1.1374617710103; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id c4sm6975381qad.0.2013.07.23.15.15.08 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51EF0057.2060801@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:14:47 -0400
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <CAD5OKxsspqwpEOWkVgDUjY0aJ-taSUAbt3x=GfgZ-ORdZKU+-Q@mail.gmail.com> <51EEB495.4070404@nostrum.com> <51EEFC6B.9090503@bbs.darktech.org> <CA+9kkMBwBP2p5UG95h7rY9CAwUpXpRiLKjne-bEn0pX2gooS7w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMBwBP2p5UG95h7rY9CAwUpXpRiLKjne-bEn0pX2gooS7w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030708030001000801050905"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnYh9D9Sc4NQEj4LqEd683MNVB0MPpDAKfo1tp9DmdNHEMgesPQbH4Q0eNx222H03UG+VwI
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 22:15:16 -0000
Hi Ted, Thank you for the clarification. In the meantime, Adam (and others) can comment question #2. Gili On 23/07/2013 6:08 PM, Ted Hardie wrote: > 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 > <mailto: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 <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb > >
- [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
- Re: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR Stefan HÃ¥kansson LK