On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Barry Leiba <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hey, Ted. > > > Actually, I believe -- I'm willing to be corrected -- that we do *not* > talk about participants' evaluations of patent claims, and we shut > those discussions down if they happen. If an IPR claim is filed on an internet-draft, I think a working group participant saying something like "I still plan to implement this, as I see $FOO and $BAR as demonstrating prior art." would be well within our process. Preventing them from saying that because some other participant doesn't want to hear about $FOO or $BAR seems like it grants a patent assertion way too much power. Note that this does not in any way mean that other participants must come to the same conclusion as the participant who mentions $FOO and $BAR. As you note, they must come to their own conclusions. But I have certainly heard multiple discussions of participants' evaluations of how specific claims would or would not effect their choices, and I believe that these are appropriate. > I believe that we consider > those discussions out of scope for working groups, and that we expect > and advise each participant to make her own decision in that regard. > > I think we consider the working group making an assertion about the patent rights inappropriate, but that it may come to consensus about likely implementation and deployment based on its participants evaluation of all the criteria for that (including the participants' knowledge of relevant prior technologies). And I think that's very different from saying "we don't discuss prior art". > Barry > regards, Ted
_______________________________________________ video-codec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec
