Subject: [rtcweb] Notification for draft-benham-rtcweb-vp8litigation-00.txt

From: "David Benham (dbenham)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 22:33:49 +0000

A new version of I-D, draft-benham-rtcweb-vp8litigation-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by David Benham and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:		draft-benham-rtcweb-vp8litigation
Revision:	00
Title:		VP8 Related Litigation Status Snapshot
Document date:	2014-10-27
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		6
URL:            http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-benham-rtcweb-vp8litigation-00.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-benham-rtcweb-vp8litigation/
Htmlized:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-benham-rtcweb-vp8litigation-00

Abstract:
   There remains a great deal of confusion in the industry about the
   state of patent litigation and IPR disclosures around VP8. To
   facilitate greater understanding, Duane Morris LLP drafted a paper
   that summarizes the current state of disclosures and patent
   litigation based on publically available materials and posted this
   comprehensive report on the Internet. This Internet Draft provides a
   high level summary of that report. Cisco Systems requested and funded
   Duane Morris to prepare this report.

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

---

From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:15:38 -0700

>     state of patent litigation and IPR disclosures around VP8. To

Thanks for compiling this report, David. Hopefully this can avoid 
wasting time on arguments about what should be publicly documented 
facts. I just wanted to comment that your use of the acronym "FRAND" to 
mean "Free under Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory" terms may lead to 
some confusion, as there is already an existing expansion in common use, 
namely "Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory". The term doesn't 
appear in the Duane Morris report you cite (except in a citation, where 
I believe it is intended to refer to the latter expansion, not the former).

I've been looking for a good term to use for technology which is covered 
by patents, but for which royalty-free licenses with open-source 
compatible terms exist. "Royalty-Free" doesn't quite fit the bill, as 
there are examples of royalty-free licenses which would preclude an 
open-source implementation [1]. "Patent-free" is clearly wrong and 
"patent-unencumbered", while better, might still be misleading (however, 
it's the best I've been able to think of).

If someone can think of a better way to describe this class of licenses, 
I am all ears. RFLWOSCT doesn't quite roll off the tongue.

[1] Clause 2.5 (among others) of 
http://www.polycom.com/content/dam/polycom/www/documents/program-details/siren-license-agreement.pdf 
being one example.

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 09:19:26 -0700

Nice to have this information available.

The Duane Morris report is missing information about a couple of
on-going invalidity actions. We've sent information to the I-D editors.
Hopefully, they will update the document to be more complete.

-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.