Re: [rtcweb] H.264 IPR disclosures (or persistent lack thereof)

["DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <[e-mail]>]

Well lets turn the question around then.

Which document contains the requirement that makes H.264 an essential part of its content, such that you would make an IPR declaration against it?

6.4.  What Must be in a Disclosure?

6.4.1.  The disclosure must list the numbers of any issued patents or
   published patent applications or indicate that the claim is based on
   unpublished patent applications.  The disclosure must also list the
   specific IETF or RFC Editor Document(s) or activity affected.  If the
   IETF Document is an Internet-Draft, it must be referenced by specific
   version number.  In addition, if the IETF Document includes multiple
   parts and it is not reasonably apparent which part of such IETF
   Document is alleged to be Covered by the IPR in question, it is
   helpful if the discloser identifies the sections of the IETF Document
   that are alleged to be so Covered.

And if you think this applies to H.264, where is the related VP8 disclosure, which following your reasoning, is also required?

Keith


> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ron
> Sent: 13 December 2013 02:44
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [rtcweb] H.264 IPR disclosures (or persistent lack thereof)
> 
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:30:32AM +0000, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> > If Ron can justify such a statement, the he is also in 
> defiance of the 
> > IETF IPR rules, because he himself is required to make a 
> disclosure. 
> > The requirement is to disclose if you know of..., not if you own.
> 
> Maybe you should actually go read the Note Well RFCs before 
> you engage in "No U" argumentation that just makes it look 
> like you haven't.
> 
> If I owned, or worked for or on behalf of anyone who owned 
> IPR that was relevant to the work here, I indeed would have 
> disclosed it according to the obligations noted there.
> 
> Since I don't, and I don't actually know specific details of 
> which patents might apply here (beyond reading of assertions 
> there is a pool, and of court cases that are being pursued 
> over them, and that many of the people pushing hard for the 
> adoption of H.264 are holders of them) - I am indeed 
> discharging the only obligation upon me that I SHOULD point and wave.
> 
> > But I believe Stefan is correct. Neither IETF or its 
> contributors has 
> > not written a document specifying the H.264 codec as an 
> essential part 
> > of its operation, therefore making a disclosure is not required. If 
> > IETF progresses to making a statement that incorporation of 
> an H.264 
> > implementation forms an essential part of a webrtc 
> specification, then 
> > disclosure in IETF will be required.
> 
>  "Covers or may ultimately Cover a Contribution"
> 
> I believe is the language used.
> 
>  "unless ... rejected from consideration before a disclosure 
> could reasonably
>   be submitted."
> 
> And I'm pretty sure we're well past the time of "could 
> reasonably", unless your position is that we should now 
> immediately reject it from consideration?
> 
> 
> > ISO/IEC JTC1 does have a specification for H.264, and I am led to 
> > believe disclosures of IPR have been made there. Noone involved in 
> > this discussion as far as I am aware is hiding H.264 IPR. Again I 
> > believe as a third party, you are also allowed to make IPR 
> disclosures 
> > there (certainly every other SDO I know of allows third 
> party disclosures).
> > 
> > And before this degenerates into a discussion of what 
> people want the 
> > IETF IPR rules to become rather than what they are, take 
> that to the 
> > IETF discussion list.
> 
>  "Contributors must disclose IPR meeting the description in 
> this section;
>   there are no exceptions to this rule."
> 
> Nobody is arguing for a change to the rules here.  It's the 
> blatant disregard for them (or perhaps you are trying to 
> subtly demonstrate that it's simply ignorance of them) which 
> is what concerns me at the present time.
> 
> I'd prefer to just see this remedied by the people who the 
> obligation falls upon than to make an example of them before 
> the wider IETF.
> If it goes that far I would assume it will be with a call for 
> sanctions.
> 
> 
> Stephan may still be correct that there is some sneaky back 
> door that people can hide behind here - but if there is one, 
> all that you've proved in these statements is that you don't 
> know what it is either.
> 
>   Ron
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>