Re: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR

[Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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 [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>