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.Valin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> 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@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf