Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc

[Alan Clark <[e-mail]>]

Rachel

On your comment that there is no procedure for a disclosure to be 
withdrawn, RFC3979 Section 6.1.1 states that

"An IPR discloser is requested to withdraw a previous disclosure if a 
revised Contribution negates the previous IPR disclosure, or to amend a 
previous disclosure if a revised Contribution substantially alters the 
previous disclosure."

which means that the IETF patent policy does permit a disclosure to be 
withdrawn.

Also - the IPR disclosure database shows for disclosure 2633 (and 
others) - "This IPR disclosure was removed at the request of the submitter."

So there is a procedure for withdrawing a disclosure, you simply need to 
ask the IETF to do it.

Best Regards

Alan

On 3/11/16 1:14 AM, Huangyihong (Rachel) wrote:
>
> Hi Alan,
>
> Inline please.
>
> BR,
>
> Rachel
>
> *From:*Alan Clark [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2016 10:08 PM
> *To:* Huangyihong (Rachel); [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to 
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
>
> Hi Rachel
>
> According to your logic, as the MOS score reported using RFC3611 or 
> RFC6035 would be affected by the choice of voice codec on a call then 
> an implementer of these protocols should obtain a license to every 
> voice codec patent, which is obviously not the case. The question is - 
> does the implementer have to implement what is described in the patent 
> and claimed in the patent claims, and in the case of concealment 
> metrics the implementer does not need to implement a concealment 
> algorithm in order to report the metrics.
>
> [Rachel]: I may be wrong. But I learned that they have optional and 
> mandatory in patent hearings. In this case, I assume it does not 
> require a mandatory implementation for the patent, but still a patent 
> claim could be made.
>
> On the disclosure itself:-
> (i) a reciprocity condition is not weak. Say that I have a fundamental 
> patent related to SDN technology and would like to assert this against 
> companies that infringe it then a reciprocity condition could affect 
> my ability to enforce my patent.
>
> [Rachel]: But it depends on the patent litigation to think if it 
> affects or not, right?
>
>
> (ii) it is unrealistic to say "it's no problem a judge could figure it 
> out". Patent litigation is very expensive and by the time a case gets 
> in front of a judge then the lawyers' bill can be in the US$ millions.
>
>
> My view is that if we don't push back (at least at the WG level) on 
> patent disclosures that are not relevant to the draft then we would 
> encourage frivolous disclosure and adversely impact the adoption of 
> IETF RFCs and Standards.
>
> [Rachel]: I’m told that there’s no procedure for a patent disclosure 
> to withdrawn.
> The WG certainly does have the option of deciding not to proceed with 
> a draft if there has been a patent disclosure against that draft, and 
> I think that we should invoke that option.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Alan
>
> On 3/10/16 3:00 AM, Huangyihong (Rachel) wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     I cannot say the absolute irrelevance between the draft and the
>     patent. Cleary, a choosing of concealment algorithm may affect the
>     values contained in the protocol. And I think my colleagues make
>     the IPR disclosure based on the following IETF IPR policy RFC3979
>
>     “
>
>        Any individual participating in an IETF discussion who
>     reasonably and
>
>        personallyknows of IPR meeting the conditions of Section 6.6 which
>
>        the individual believes Covers or may ultimately Covera
>     Contribution
>
>        made by another person, or which such IETF participant
>     reasonably and
>
>        personally knows his or her employer or sponsor may assert against
>
>        Implementing Technologies based on such Contribution, must make a
>
>        disclosure in accordance with this Section 6.
>
>     ”
>
>     And I checked the disclosure, which says
>     “
>
>     If any claim of any patent owned or controlled by Huawei or its
>     Affiliates is essential on a technical ground to the standard
>     adopted by IETF, Huawei on behalf of itself and its Affiliates
>     hereby covenant not to assert any such claim against any party for
>     making, using, selling, offering for sale or importing a product
>     that implements the corresponding part of the standard. However,
>     nothing herein shall preclude Huawei or any of its Affiliates from
>     asserting the above mentioned patent claims against any party that
>     asserts directly or indirectly a patent it owns or controls
>     against Huawei and/or its Affiliates, or against any products of
>     Huawei or its Affiliates either alone or in combination with other
>     products.
>     FRAND royalty-bearing licenses will be available to anyone who
>     prefers that option.
>
>     ”
>
>     I think it’s a quite weak declaration which does not license any
>     patent claim to any friendly implementations. Instead, it’s only
>     workable when companies want to use some patents against Huawei,
>     plus it will also depend on if the judge decides the disclosure is
>     workable or not. In such a case,  I don’t think implementers need
>     to worry about this.
>
>     This work is technically reasonable and valuable, thus my position
>     is to continue progressing it.
>
>     BR,
>
>     Rachel
>
>     *From:*xrblock [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of
>     *Alan Clark
>     *Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2016 12:30 AM
>     *To:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Subject:* Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to
>     draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
>
>     Dan
>
>     I reviewed (again) the patent cited by Huawei in this disclosure
>     and was not able to find any claims or descriptions related to
>     metrics and reporting - only details of a video loss concealment
>     algorithm, and the draft identifies only a reporting protocol and
>     not a video codec; I will caveat this by saying that I've reviewed
>     the English translation of the Chinese patent.
>
>     While IETF patent policy does not require companies to defend
>     their disclosures and does state that the IETF does not take a
>     position on whether a patent does or does not apply to a draft/RFC
>     I think it sets a bad precedent if a WG does not take objection to
>     disclosures that appear to be irrelevant. Saying "are you sure
>     about this?" to the disclosing company does not mean that the WG
>     is making any statement on infringement, but does IMHO represent a
>     reasonable degree of due diligence on behalf of the WG. If we
>     don't push back on disclosing companies when we feel that the
>     disclosure is based on an invalid understanding of the draft then
>     we are doing a disservice to implementers and making the IPR
>     situation more complex and messy than it already is.
>
>     My position is that we should not proceed with this document,
>     based on the information we have at this time.
>
>     Regards
>
>     Alan Clark
>
>
>     On 3/8/16 7:41 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>
>         ALL WG participants – please answer this question before March
>         22, 2016.
>
>         Thanks and Regards,
>
>         Dan
>
>         *From:*xrblock [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of
>         *Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
>         *Sent:* Tuesday, March 08, 2016 2:27 PM
>         *To:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         *Subject:* Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to
>         draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
>
>         Hi,
>
>         We did not receive any answer to the request for further
>         information.
>
>         At this point in time, we ask the working group to express
>         their opinion about what to do with
>          draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc.
>
>         We have two options:
>
>         1.Continue as planned with the approval and publication process
>
>         2.Not proceed with this document.
>
>         All WG participants – please express you preference for option
>         #1 or option #2.
>
>         Thanks and Regards,
>
>         Dan
>
>         *From:*xrblock [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of
>         *Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
>         *Sent:* Sunday, February 07, 2016 11:29 AM
>         *To:* Huangyihong (Rachel); Alan Clark; [e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         *Subject:* Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to
>         draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
>
>         Hi,
>
>         There was one answer to this mail (from Alan) expressing
>         preference for option #1. Let us go with it.
>
>         Rachel, it would be good if you can send your colleagues a
>         reminder.
>
>         Thanks and Regards,
>
>         Dan
>
>         *From:*xrblock [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of
>         *Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
>         *Sent:* Friday, January 29, 2016 8:34 AM
>         *To:* Huangyihong (Rachel); Alan Clark; [e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         *Subject:* Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to
>         draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
>
>         Thanks, Rachel, for the information and for the efforts to
>         clarify the issue with the legal affairs department at your
>         company.
>
>         We have a few more options about what to do next.
>
>         1.  Wait a few more weeks for an answer with further
>         information – I suggest no later than February 29, 2016
>
>         2. Proceed with the draft given the information available
>
>         3. Not proceed with the draft
>
>         All WG members – please express your preference.
>
>         Thanks and Regards,
>
>         Dan
>
>         *From:*Huangyihong (Rachel) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>         *Sent:* Friday, January 29, 2016 5:42 AM
>         *To:* Huangyihong (Rachel); Alan Clark; Romascanu, Dan (Dan);
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         *Subject:* RE: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to
>         draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
>
>         Dear all,
>
>         Sorry for so late response to the mailing list.
>
>         I have forwarded this IPR issue to our legal affairs
>         department responsible for this IPR disclosure. However, I
>         didn’t get any information for now. And I’m not sure if they
>         have any that could be shared within the mailing list or not
>         (We all know that IETF policy doesn’t require the company to
>         analysis and verify the applying, which is what the legal team
>         or even court  should do when meeting some legal problems).
>
>         Meanwhile, I can’t do any clarification for them in public
>         since we’re totally different departments. It will against our
>         company’s law. …So it’s not within my control. Hope WG could
>         understand that.
>
>         BR,
>
>         Rachel
>
>         *From:*xrblock [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of
>         *Huangyihong (Rachel)
>         *Sent:* Friday, January 08, 2016 11:26 AM
>         *To:* Alan Clark; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         *Subject:* Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to
>         draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
>
>         Hi all,
>
>         Sorry for the late response. I’m in a business trip these two
>         weeks with sporadic email access. So I may not respond timely.
>
>         This IPR is from another department so I’m not quite familiar
>         with it. I’ll invite the colleague who’s the IPR holder or
>         responsible for the IPR disclosure to clarify in the mailing
>         list. Hope we can find some way to solve this issue.
>
>         BR,
>
>         Rachel
>
>         *发 件人:*xrblock [mailto:[e-mail]] *代 表
>         *Alan Clark
>         *发 送时间:*2016年1月7日0:21
>         *收件人:*Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         *主题:*Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to
>         draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
>
>         Hi Dan
>
>         Within the IETF patent policy there is no requirement that I'm
>         aware of that requires a disclosing company to prove that the
>         patent they reference does in fact apply to the draft/RFC,
>         which means that companies could make disclosure statements
>         that don't actually apply to the referenced draft/RFC. In many
>         larger companies the IPR/legal team may be distant from the
>         engineering team and I've seen cases in which allegations of
>         infringement were made based on a text match rather than a
>         technical analysis. If, as WG members, we feel that a
>         disclosure may be inappropriate based on a technical
>         understanding of the draft/RFC and the patent then IMHO we
>         should be willing to politely point this out - if the
>         disclosing company wants to keep the disclosure anyway then we
>         have to leave it to individual implementers to obtain their
>         own legal advice; my view is that as WG members and authors we
>         should try and keep the IPR situation as clear as possible.
>
>         I've encountered exactly this situation - my company develops
>         software that analyzes voice/ audio/ video stream performance
>         and as part of this we model the performance of a wide range
>         of voice/ audio and video codecs. We have been contacted
>         numerous times by companies that have codec IPR and who see
>         that we analyze streams encoded with the G.xyz codec - we then
>         have to explain that we don't actually implement the codec,
>         only a parametric model.
>
>         So - my position is that we should ask Rachel, as an author
>         and a representative of the disclosing company, to request
>         that Huawei verify that their disclosure does, in their
>         opinion, apply.
>
>         Regards
>
>         Alan
>
>         On 1/6/16 9:40 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>
>             Hi Alan,
>
>             The statement that was posted a few weeks back explicitly
>             refers to this I-D – see
>             https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2725/
>             <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_ipr_2725_&d=BQMFbw&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=kiLRy3Dy18TaCdFTLegz5r3LuHhd2B0eMVVxbhrJLt0&s=LLsGFzAZgTvcoyP_BY4A2BWWgGVV9e9ZAj16tjytCho&e=>.
>             Of course, anybody can comment within the rules, but the
>             fact that the disclosing company considers the IPR related
>             to this I-D is public information.
>
>             What is your position as WG participant and as co-author
>             of the document? What should the WG do?
>
>             Thanks and Regards,
>
>             Dan
>
>             *From:*xrblock [mailto:[e-mail]] *On
>             Behalf Of *Alan Clark
>             *Sent:* Tuesday, January 05, 2016 10:06 PM
>             *To:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             *Subject:* Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related
>             to draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
>
>             I reviewed the patent that the disclosure related to -
>             this appears to describe a method for video coding that
>             uses loss concealment and not a method of reporting the
>             effectiveness of loss concealment. It is of course the
>             responsibility of the IPR holder to verify that their
>             patent does in fact apply to the Draft/RFC to which their
>             disclosure statement applies.  I suggest that the WG
>             chairs ask the participants from the disclosing company to
>             check to see if this disclosure is in fact relevant to the
>             draft.
>
>             Regards
>
>             Alan
>
>             On 1/5/16 7:34 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>
>                 Hi,
>
>                 There were no responses to this query. Please express
>                 your opinions on the mail list whether we should
>                 continue as planned with the approval for this I-D.
>
>                 Possible options (other may apply):
>
>                 1.Continue as planned
>
>                 2.Do not continue
>
>                 3.Continue, but first do …
>
>                 Thanks and Regards,
>
>                 Dan
>
>                 *From:*xrblock [mailto:[e-mail]] *On
>                 Behalf Of *Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
>                 *Sent:* Wednesday, December 16, 2015 12:55 PM
>                 *To:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>                 *Subject:* [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related
>                 to draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
>
>                 Hi,
>
>                 As you may have seen an IPR disclosure that pertains
>                 to draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc was submitted
>                 recently. The announcement on the XRBLOCK mail list
>                 with  more information can be read at
>                 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xrblock/current/msg01914.html
>                 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Darchive_web_xrblock_current_msg01914.html&d=BQMFAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=JT0PNFMVTwcCOwfJFWR9rPXwWO3aXrz-8hcAnDMibu4&s=Y212mtSrLAN6yGGEigFnx-qwjZv_a0r5MpWucZswumg&e=>.
>
>
>                 This I-D was on the agenda of the IESG telechat this
>                 Thursday 12/17. Our AD decided to defer this I-D to
>                 the next telechat scheduled for January 7, 2016 and
>                 asked us to confirm on the mail list that the WG still
>                 plans to proceed with the I-D.
>
>                 Taking into account this new information – do the
>                 participants in the WG want to proceed with the
>                 approval of this Internet-Draft? Please state your
>                 opinions on the WG mail list until Monday January 4,
>                 2016.
>
>                 Thanks and Regards,
>
>                 Dan
>
>                 _______________________________________________
>
>                 xrblock mailing list
>
>                 [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>                 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
>                 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_xrblock&d=BQMD-g&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=QnXfHHtrCWuOTN6ltI1OQl5JKpT1vIEt5lm6yyUl-K0&s=ZDjj6FP8ei9wzWsi7L54u3cKecOhJxcBl4LP8yojwBQ&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>
>         xrblock mailing list
>
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xrblock
>