Re: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR

[Stefan Håkansson LK <[e-mail]>]

FYI,

I've asked internally in my company for advice on what needs to be done 
(if anything) from our side. IPRs and handling of them is outside my 
competence.

Stefan


On 7/23/13 6:22 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
> 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 <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     On 7/23/13 09:20, tim panton wrote:
>>     On 23 Jul 2013, at 14:00, Stefan Håkansson LK<[e-mail]>  <mailto:[e-mail]>  wrote:
>>
>>>     On 7/23/13 5:03 AM, Justin Uberti wrote:
>>>>     With the compromise reached in the Unified Plan document,
>>>     Presumablyhttp://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
>
>