Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Fri, 22 November 2013 22:54 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 BAE9B1AE0B3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:54:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.035
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.035 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001] autolearn=no
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 YkpSYTd_Aif3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:54:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B6991AE1F8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:54:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from orochi.roach.at (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id rAMMs8tE047393 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 16:54:08 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <528FE08B.1020908@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 16:54:03 -0600
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com>, rtcweb@ietf.org
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>
In-Reply-To: <528FCA68.2070309@googlemail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 99.152.145.110 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
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: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 22:54:20 -0000

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