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

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

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 ¨C 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 ¨C 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

·¢¼þÈË: xrblock [mailto:[e-mail]] ´ú±í Alan Clark
·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2016Äê1ÔÂ7ÈÕ 0:21
ÊÕ¼þÈË: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Ö÷Ìâ: 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 ¨C 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 ¨C 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=>