Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com> Wed, 27 November 2013 15:28 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.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 4277F1AE0A2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 07:28:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 iN7TZshpq4oa for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 07:28:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 948511AE030 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 07:28:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3078; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1385566133; x=1386775733; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=tSstdAtzOuQAg04w9oF/x2MMwpjrqMPmnax55FNYsac=; b=kp683l62Lm7IPwgbAUC/auA3dGDyUGpDNBQs4hCL/Qq86WiajkgG5jSX o5AU5DHrEJPi3oAiS4B3aBQHhNYhapwqtnn1TdBr5zzV3bLlbfpaBLeDy S/GMVRFzM9VGXkIBnYSB9tCVh8gdzN08qo+ZxIcZclBG/ppcfsA5dHWHG Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArMKAFAPllKtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4U7hxToEdFnSBeBIBGgEBAQMBAQEBNzQLBQsCAQgOCh4QJwslAgQOBYd7Bg3ALheGf4cWOjMHgyCBEwOFaJIskhODKYIq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,782,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="287864024"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Nov 2013 15:28:30 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com [173.37.183.79]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rARFSTOw010630 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 27 Nov 2013 15:28:29 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.231]) by xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([173.37.183.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:28:29 -0600
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
To: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
Thread-Index: AQHO5tnkAeeozn/0CECMWetiwkXodZov+9iAgAACNgCAAAr/gIAABK+AgAAYwYCAAAHxAIAAAPyAgAARmQCAAAD1AIAAMeGAgAAE/oCAAAJigIAACkAAgAABfoCAAAGeAIAAAhYAgAEo7oCAABXKAIAAGmOAgAdVVYD//4IDgIAA7GcA
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 15:28:28 +0000
Message-ID: <23F7A503-6F95-4472-B68F-BA36B6BCCAA9@cisco.com>
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> <528FE08B.1020908@nostrum.com> <B9742C9B-B3E4-40D6-B1DA-D6E2611D00BD@cisco.com> <CEBB4C1B.AAFBD%stewe@stewe.org>
In-Reply-To: <CEBB4C1B.AAFBD%stewe@stewe.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.20.249.164]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <D26DEFAB6E72254680CEC1EC86861AF2@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
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: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 15:28:57 -0000

fair enough - I did not look at any of the file wrapper information 


On Nov 27, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>; wrote:

> Cullen,
> You missed the patent term adjustment of 487 days in this case--a very
> short adjustment period for a video coding patent (see note on over page
> right below the assignees).  Note that this PTA is occasionally adjusted
> upwards after printing of the cover page (quite often actually for
> standards essential cases), which is recorded in the file wrapper and
> usually (but not always) in a certificate of correction.
> The patent in question is currently being litigated in an MPEG-2 context,
> and I have heard that the question of PTA has come up (though I do not
> know any details).
> Stephan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 11.27.2013, 06:53 , "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>; wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Adam, thought I agree with your meta point about submarine patents
>> existed in the past, I don' think you have this quite right on the
>> details on this one.
>> 
>> For US patents applications filed prior to June 8, 1995, the term is
>> either 17 years from date of issue or 20 years from earliest priority
>> date, whichever is later. For applications filed after June 8, 1995, the
>> term is 20 years from the earliest priority date.
>> 
>> Given this was filed after 1995, it expires 20 years after the priority
>> date so it expired in 2012.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 22, 2013, at 3:54 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>; wrote:
>> 
>>> 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb