Re: on the opportunity to design an alternative to FLUTE

Hi Vincent, folks,
I believe I have said this in Prague already: it is somewhat tricky  
to design around a well written patent or patent application  
(especially if there is still a chance for the alarmed rightholder to  
amend the claims).  I do not encourage such an attempt.  Let me  
suggest to base a decision predominantly on potential technical  
merits of a FLUTE successor, rather than attempting an arms-race with  
lawyers on patent coverage.
This is going to be my last statement on this matter.
Cheers,
Stephan
P.s.: I work for Nokia, the company which has made an IPR disclosure  
towards FLUTE-revised.
P.p.s.: instead of RFC3667, you may wish to cite the up-to-date  
patent policy document (RFC3979), or use the generic designation  
(BCP79).


On Dec 4, 2007, at 5:12 PM, Vincent Roca wrote:

> Hello,
>
> During the RMT meeting, today morning, it was decided to ask the  
> RMT members
> their opinion on the opportunity to continue the work on an  
> alternative to FLUTE
> for which an IPR has been disclosed in June 2006 (see below for the  
> details).
> If feasible, this alternative application could be designed so that  
> it works on both ALC
> and NORM.
>
> If it turns out that there is an interest, the sub-question is the  
> following:
>  Are there volunteers to work on the subject in order to design an  
> alternative that
>  bypasses the FLUTE patents?
>
> Don't hesitate to speak up.
> Cheers,
>
>  Vincent.
>
>
> ** Nokia's IPR disclosures  related to FLUTE:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/733/
> but also:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/517/   (FLUTE and SDP)
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/635/   (file aggregation for FLUTE)
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/731/   (RFC 3926)
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/102/   (the original IPR  
> disclosure, Feb. 2003)
>
> ** IETF position W.R.T. IPR:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3668.txt?number=3668
> ** Minutes of IETF67 RMT meeting, where this point has been raised
> (see item 6, "open discussion"):
> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/minutes/rmt.html
>
> **More information on the FCAST proposal is available here:
> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/rmt-0/sld1.htm
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-roca-rmt-newfcast-00
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rmt mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt