ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)

2010-01-11 12:24:01
Sorry, my "has been shown" statement was about "making something much better
than G.722/G.711". The IPR part is something that would need to be discussed
within a future WG (subject to BCP79 and all).

   Jean-Marc

Quoting Stephan Wenger <stewe(_at_)stewe(_dot_)org>:

Hi Jean-Marc,

I don't think anything "has been shown", with respect to IPR and RF
properties of the current input proposal documents.  And I don't believe
anything conclusive will be shown, ever.  At best, arguably, nothing
substantial has been shown against an RF claim of the input proposals.
Arguably", because the Skype assurance in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1164/ is hardly a strongly worded, binding,
non-assert or license.

Theoretically, even the 23 year timeframe (of publication of G.722) does not
(yet) provide full certainty under US law against patent encumbrances;
though the position of a G.722 user is probably very strong now.  Look up
"prosecution laches" if you want to know how I came to these conclusions.

I completely agree that we should not exclusively rely on 20 year old
technologies on a mission to "make the Internet work better", not even on
the grounds of patent fears.  Expect me to use this argument occasionally
:-)

Stephan


On 1/11/10 7:32 AM, "Jean-Marc Valin" 
<Jean-Marc(_dot_)Valin(_at_)USherbrooke(_dot_)ca>
wrote:

Hi,

Regardless of the exact status of the PLC IPR, I don't think it would be a
good
idea to just say that "the Internet should just follow ITU-T standards with
a
20-year lag". As it has been already shown with the codec proposals
received
to
date, it should be possible to create RF codecs that are *much* better than
G.722 and G.711.

   Jean-Marc

Quoting Steve Underwood <steveu(_at_)coppice(_dot_)org>:

On 01/11/2010 11:00 PM, Christian Hoene wrote:
Dear Herve Taddei,


Besides, I don't think you would have any trouble to propose at ITU-T
some
new appendices to G.711 and G.722 that could fit your goals. An appendix
is
non normative (a bit like the informative reference to G.711 PLC in
iLBC).
By the way, if I am not wrong, some basic ITU-T G.722 PLCs are RF.

This was my understanding, too.

The G.722 spec is 23 years old, so it would be difficult for any of the
patents on that spec to still be valid. The ITU patent database does
list US patent 5528629 as related to G.722, but I assume this is an
error. The patent dates from so long after G.722 came out, and its
contents do not appear relevant to G.722. However, the recent additions
for PLC are:

     G.722 (1988) App IV - Broadcom has claims
     G.722 Appendix III - Broadcom has claims
     G.722 Appendix IV - France Telecom has claims.

Have you seen any clear statements that those patents may be used
royalty free?

Steve

_______________________________________________
codec mailing list
codec(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec





_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf





_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>