W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Encrypted Media proposal: Summary of the discussion so far

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:51:44 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+czdXQA20i+tUunSfqSLukU63HrJR_cgESU6GLuYfDcnw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Cc: David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-html@w3.org
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:

>  On 3/12/2012 12:08 PM, David Dorwin wrote:
>
> Confirmation that the development of CDM "key systems" is covered by the
> W3C Patent Policy: should a company decide that they want to create their
> own CDM, and they do so, they should not face face IP litigation from W3C
> members. Each existing CDM vendor, who is also a w3c member, would check
> their patent holdings for relevant IP. A fictional example would be
> "Encryption of a network video stream and management of a collection of
> keys for decoding of the data".
>

nothing in the proposal requires a specific CDM to be covered by W3C PP;
nor does the W3C PP or PD require this; so you are asking for something
that is out of scope; this is no different from someone defining a canvas
context that is IPR encumbered and publishing its availability via
canvas.getConext("anEncumberedCanvasContext");

further, the W3C PP does not, in general, indemnify W3C members from one
another


> My understanding is that companies should be able to create and maintain
> CDM providers without fear of competitive patent disputes.
>

the W3C PP is no guarantee against patent disputes, so this is a red herring

IANAL, but it seems that you may wish to consult one to formulate questions
that are reasonably in scope of the W3C PP and PD;
Received on Monday, 12 March 2012 20:52:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:30 UTC