Re: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Tue, 23 July 2013 22:56 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 78A8811E8177 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:56:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 GFR5VSabD9Ax for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:56:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-f169.google.com (mail-we0-f169.google.com [74.125.82.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B24FB11E8173 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f169.google.com with SMTP id n57so7761834wev.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=OIsHo9/snYjxBtMtTIna64xrpjLjRFTjv66RS06bpDU=; b=hWCfXs5vjT4r3WWy6cLWxqusuSIDjJIIrMhd4EDXGtS+PN0z2JjCMHoTrAYnoIPORF ohetbjWKiISddMrcd8IjrNsjZWQmPEMKL9uRqpyRiZU7xIwE8tpv5/PrtdcQKQ1N73HD KHWl+YYVMDz1uaLZL1Af4ZfPPWC9It/z8kN1PWXWKmNodz9MRaYKFagz411ueqqRpGem uAGyKYM6eR2HmpUl1hX5FM+Mt0lIKyi2GSSm4NZuPKxVKolodqbWrl2vsq4qwHrTTmGQ WO4ExR5prxw02ZQEgqVg33vjaAoyzJXZ8yHQh9eHBwUyGTlrzOeO5JAYAp73sanbxdim UJMQ==
X-Received: by 10.180.75.80 with SMTP id a16mr656571wiw.3.1374620204741; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22c.google.com (mail-wi0-x22c.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fs8sm1548080wib.0.2013.07.23.15.56.43 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id c10so3596068wiw.11 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:56:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.85.6 with SMTP id d6mr556280wiz.47.1374620203043; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:56:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.221.202 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51EF01E5.7090701@nostrum.com>
References: <CAD5OKxsspqwpEOWkVgDUjY0aJ-taSUAbt3x=GfgZ-ORdZKU+-Q@mail.gmail.com> <51EEB495.4070404@nostrum.com> <51EEFC6B.9090503@bbs.darktech.org> <51EF01E5.7090701@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:56:42 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxtKtFXM9U3NTseOq7XCdoJ-480wAYyTyFBGZmx0HkUo3g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0442808ee757b304e235b4ec
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk1sBcaNznLxNNjyHXyAiMl+0Yswg+Km9AJCB9tzMXjlrmJ2ZkQU+7MofpzWJs5h5uMNOo3
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 22:56:57 -0000

I did not want to blow this out of proportion. All I wanted to point out
that that licensing terms are missing and until the licensing terms are
clear this does present a certain risk. I do agree that given current
active participation of Ericsson in this list, this risk is likely low. One
other thing that I wanted to mention was that some aspects of the unified
draft can be adjusted to limit the exposure to the declared IPR.

Regards,
_____________
Roman Shpount


On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:

>  The chairs have asked us not to cross-post. As this pertains to an IETF
> IPR declaration, I'll speak to it here.
>
> I'll note that your response is a vast overreaction at this juncture, as
> (1) these are merely applications, not granted patents; and (2) Ericsson
> has not yet indicated their intentions regarding the licensing terms of any
> patents that may result.
>
> In terms of your two questions: I'm not a laywer, so I'm not able to speak
> to the applicability of the patents in any authoritative fashion. All that
> I can really say is that I have a reasonable belief that the claims of
> these applications, if granted, would apply to the draft in question.
>
> I will make one factual observation, without any interpretation, from
> which you can draw your own conclusions: the independent claims of the
> patent applications in question do not mention SDP.
>
> /a
>
>
>
>
> On 7/23/13 16:58, cowwoc wrote:
>
>
>     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 listrtcweb@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>