Re: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR

Roman Shpount <> Tue, 23 July 2013 22:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78A8811E8177 for <>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:56:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GFR5VSabD9Ax for <>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:56:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B24FB11E8173 for <>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id n57so7761834wev.0 for <>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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 with SMTP id a16mr656571wiw.3.1374620204741; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c]) by with ESMTPSA id fs8sm1548080wib.0.2013. for <> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c10so3596068wiw.11 for <>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:56:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id d6mr556280wiz.47.1374620203043; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:56:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:56:42 -0400
Message-ID: <>
From: Roman Shpount <>
To: Adam Roach <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d0442808ee757b304e235b4ec"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk1sBcaNznLxNNjyHXyAiMl+0Yswg+Km9AJCB9tzMXjlrmJ2ZkQU+7MofpzWJs5h5uMNOo3
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Unified plan IPR
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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.

Roman Shpount

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Adam Roach <> 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
>    - 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.org
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list