From yann.dietrich@rd.francetelecom.com  Thu Nov 15 10:50:48 2001
From: yann.dietrich@rd.francetelecom.com (DIETRICH Yann FTRD/VAT/ISS)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 11:50:48 +0100
Subject: [Patents] patents on ITU-proposals (g.723.1)
Message-ID: <6544C6BD4C1DD1119AFC00805F15DA71026A5296@p-geai.rd.francetelecom.fr>

please have a look on this page : http://www.sipro.com/licensing/723.htm 

I do not know that Microsoft has patents on G.723.1. Pay attention to not
make any confusion between an hardware or a software implementation
compliant with G.723.1 which can be the property of Microsoft without any
obligation to grant license and the essential patents of the G723.1
standard. In the second case, every patent holders have to grant a license
on fair and reasonable conditions. It is not very easy to understand, but
everyone can be proprietary of his own implementation of a standard, but he
is sure to have a license of all necessary rights to make this
implementation. 

I hope I am clear. 

Regards, 

Yann 

 

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Kristoff Bonne [mailto:kristoff.bonne@compaqnet.be]
> Envoye : jeudi 15 novembre 2001 11:31
> A : DIETRICH Yann FTRD/VAT/ISS
> Cc : 'Jean-Paul Smets'; patents@aful.org
> Objet : RE: [Patents] patents on ITU-proposals (g.723.1)
> 
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, DIETRICH Yann FTRD/VAT/ISS wrote:
> > It is a general question about standards, ITU policy is 
> very closed to
> > others patent policies like ISO, ETSI. Such policies are 
> very important for
> > interoperability because patent holders have to license 
> their essential
> > patents under fair and reasonable conditions. ...
> Well, that's also what I thought!
> (well, at least reading the information on the ITU-webpage).
> 
> I don't know, but saying "these hardware g723.1 codec-cards 
> can only be
> used by netmeeting. To me, that doesn't really sound like 'fair and
> reasonable conditions', does it?
> (To me, this looks like using the g923.1 patent to bar 
> competing software
> products access to a certain technology)?
> 
> 
> I'm not a lawer; so can you explain me in 'laymen'-words?
> 
> - Can the openh323 organisation make microsoft licence 
> g.723.1 to them and
> what should they do when microsoft does not comply?
> 
> - Can the patent-hold (microsoft) then invoke additional 
> restrictions on
> the code (like "openh323.org is responsable for making sure 
> microsoft gets
> payed for every 'customer' of the the g723.1 codec")?
> 
> (Which means "no open-source").
> 
> 
> - Could this issue be solved by having just 'hooks' into the 
> openh323-code
> and selling the codecs as a seperate entity (a seperate piece 
> of software
> or as hardware-cards)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > But it is clear, also, that discussions in ITU IPR group or in other
> > standardization organization show me that opensource or 
> free software issues
> > are not well known or more in such groups. But it is not 
> general and I think
> > that policies like in W3C or IETF are more compliant with opensource
> > constraints.
> Euh. Wasn't there talk in the W3C to allow it 'accept' 
> patented technology
> as an official W3C standard?
> 
> 
> Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
> 


