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

[Alan Clark <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dan

My preference would to give Huawei's legal department a little more time

Regards

Alan

On 1/29/16 1:34 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>
> 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]
> *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=>
>