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

[Alan Clark <[e-mail]>]

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).

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.

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]
> *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
>