Re: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR

Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> Wed, 24 July 2013 09:22 UTC

Return-Path: <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.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 7E3AE11E83EF; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 02:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 RS5h71U2NKaE; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 02:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw7.ericsson.se (mailgw7.ericsson.se [193.180.251.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1B5411E83E7; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 02:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7ef76d000004bbc-76-51ef9cc21603
Received: from ESESSHC004.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw7.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id BA.42.19388.2CC9FE15; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:22:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.135]) by ESESSHC004.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.30]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:22:09 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Stefan_H=E5kansson_LK?= <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR
Thread-Index: AQHOh8DTWQouOaWKZ069iwy97wHFxg==
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:22:09 +0000
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C336254@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <CAD5OKxsspqwpEOWkVgDUjY0aJ-taSUAbt3x=GfgZ-ORdZKU+-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.148]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrJLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvre6hOe8DDRa8kLfY83cRu8XU5Y9Z LGZcmMpssfZfO7vFuvfHWBxYPZYs+cnkMWvnExaPW1MKPC5O288UwBLFZZOSmpNZllqkb5fA lfFw8UvWgkuCFcde7GRrYPzO28XIySEhYCJx8cEBJghbTOLCvfVsXYxcHEIChxklFm34A+Us YZT4MfsKM0gVm0CgxNZ9C9hAbBEBVYm/3yczgRQxC/QxSsy70wJWJCygJrG9vYsJokhdonf+ KnYIW0/iZdsCxi5GDg4WoOaP58pAwrwCvhLrn04AKxESCJA48ec62HxGoIu+n1oDNoZZQFzi 1pP5UJcKSCzZc54ZwhaVePn4HyuErSTRuOQJK0S9nsSNqVPYIGxtiWULXzND7BKUODnzCcsE RtFZSMbOQtIyC0nLLCQtCxhZVjGy5yZm5qSXm29iBEbPwS2/DXYwbrovdohRmoNFSZx3s96Z QCGB9MSS1OzU1ILUovii0pzU4kOMTBycUg2MatVuc9xCy9levTJLUtepXpvfpFnob3GR4e5F vl77DPfYSX826f//VKGdxDTb05i1dhuTKntc+MmdHnP+VjenqU/yunybXa7q3+N7e0oXXLpu +p/njvCngtK9MomHdrlFRLHM5verqthyMt3c5sNeOU2LVZuqzG7sFO+ITLpxeLb8uZdFcj1K LMUZiYZazEXFiQCbQT+UbAIAAA==
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>, tim panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
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: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:22:20 -0000

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 <adam@nostrum.com
> <mailto:adam@nostrum.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 7/23/13 09:20, tim panton wrote:
>>     On 23 Jul 2013, at 14:00, Stefan Håkansson LK<stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>  <mailto:stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>  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
>
>