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

[Alan Clark <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roni

So I guess if a company made an IPR disclosure that stated their 
electric toaster patent applied to the draft then you would express no 
opinion?  I'm not as willing to suppress my views on IPR issues - I've 
been dealing with patent claims related to standards since the 
mid-1980's and have always tried to honor both the word and spirit of 
the patent policy of the standards organizations I've been involved 
with.  I've also been involved in patent litigation and patent licensing 
discussions many times and know at first hand the complexity and cost 
involved.  As a WG we should have the interests of potential 
implementers at heart, both from a technical perspective and in 
minimizing legal obstacles to implementation.

If the WG wants to proceed with this then so be it - however in that 
case I will request that I am removed as an author as I cannot support 
this draft under those circumstances.

Best Regards

Alan


On 3/10/16 5:49 PM, Roni Even wrote:
>
> Hi Alan,
>
> Inline
>
> Roni
>
> *From:*Alan Clark [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2016 4:39 PM
> *To:* Roni Even; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [xrblock] after the IPR Disclosure related to 
> draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-video-lc
>
> Hi Roni
>
> The WG certainly has the option of not proceeding with a draft given 
> that an IPR disclosure has been made against it - more so given that 
> the disclosure was not made during any of the working sessions 
> (according to IETF policy).
>
> */[Roni Even] Rachel already stated that she was not aware of the IPR 
> and the disclosure in the meeting by a participant is only if you know 
> of such IPR which was not the case here!!/*
>
>
>
> Have you personally reviewed the patent in question?  I suggest that 
> it would be a good idea to do so as this is not a borderline case of 
> "does this loss concealment algorithm implement anything in that loss 
> concealment patent", there is a major disconnect between the subject 
> matter of the draft and the patent.
>
> */[Roni Even] Again I am not the right person to judge the IPR and I 
> believe that this is the case for most IETF participants. You can say 
> that this is your personal view which may be right or wrong./*
>
>
>
> Going back to my original proposal from some weeks ago - I requested 
> that Huawei internally review their patent against the draft to verify 
> that it does apply.  It appears to me to be a simple case of text 
> matching "loss concealment" rather than an actual technical review of 
> applicability. Rachel offered to ask the question and we have not had 
> a reply.
>
> Regards
>
> Alan
>
> On 3/10/16 9:11 AM, Roni Even wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     I am not sure that the IETF WGs are the body that make a decision
>     if an IPR is valid or not. So I will argue that we can proceed
>     with the document. I think that the licensing terms are OK with
>     the IETF policies and there should be no reason to stop the
>     publication
>
>     Thanks
>
>     Roni Even
>
>     *From:*xrblock [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of
>     *Alan Clark
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, March 09, 2016 6:30 PM
>     *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/. 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
>