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

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:

>  On 3/12/2012 1:51 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> There were patent disclosures for Canvas.
>
> I've proposed a baseline implementation of CDM for the Encrypted Media
> proposal. It's possible that the baseline CDM may be relevant to existing
> patent claims by participating W3C members.
>
> Henri brought up RF considerations, per Section 3.1.
> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-W3C-RF-license
>

yes, and there is nothing wrong with that, except it is rather premature;
of course, the W3C PP would apply for HTML WG work on this area if it moves
forward to a FPWD (in whatever form);

when that happens, the normal call for exclusions process would occur; i
would hope that there is nothing about the generic encrypted media proposal
on the table that would prompt a disclosure of essential IPR, but we won't
know the answer to that until the normal process occurs

i would not expect any disclosures about specific CDMs that are not defined
by the WG; of course that is possible, but probably irrelevant since it can
easily be argued that any specific CDM not defined by a W3C spec is not
essential for an implementation of the proposal;

 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;
>
>
> I am not a lawyer. I am not offering legal advice.
>
> My understanding is that companies should be able to create and maintain
> the Encrypted Media Extensions API without fear of patent disputes from
> participating W3C members over their implementation, and that vendors and
> authors should be able to use those media APIs without encountering
> undisclosed claims from other participating W3C members.
>

Yes, I agree (with your hope), but we will only find out as we go through
the process, and not up front. [Unless someone wishes to come forward early
with a essential IPR claim on the substance of the proposal.]

But I would note that this is not what you appeared to ask, but correct me
if I'm wrong. It looked to me like you were stating an expectation about
all implementations of CDMs, as opposed to just the framework/architecture
expressed by the proposal. If you only intended the latter, then I agree
that is a fair question, and one that will be dealt with by the standard
call for exclusion process and WG membership process.

I don't see any thing out of the ordinary here that would require departing
from SOP. Do you?