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@xxxxxxxxx>: > 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 > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf