[M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting

[William J. Fulco]

I would have to agree with Jordan - that gathering some "hard" (admittedly a
squishy term in this field) about POSSIBLE IP would be good, however if
there is a fear of a "submarine" patent - and someone does indeed have
such - they're not going to tell anyone up front... are they?  A "call for
evidence" seems to me to be a way to distribute the search across all the
potential actors in the space - but that's not the only way to my thinking.
Wouldn't a general purpose patent-search see if there are any possible
overlaps with MPEG-4/10 technologies? Don't most good IP law firms have
people that do this kind of stuff? I'm sure they're even better at searching
patents than the people that actually work in the USPTO.  Seems like it
would be a "simple" (for a price or course) matter to retain an IP law firm
to do some patent searches and see what they come up with.  Then it is a
matter for people in places that count to decide what to do with the info...
The only other "danger" I would see would be someone that's filed some
patent disclosure documents - and then have a couple years to file the
actual patent - I don't know (and doubt) that those are searchable...
How hard is it to get this done?
++Bill
William J. Fulco
wjf   NetworkXXIII.com
310-927-4263 Cell
---------------------------------
Logic: When you absolutely, positively
have to refute every fallacy in the room.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-admin   lists.m4if.org
> [mailto:discuss-admin   lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Jordan Greenhall
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 10:59 AM
> To: 'Rob Koenen'; 'AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN'; 'Eric Scheirer'; 'M4IF
> Discussion List (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting
>
>
> What would it take to fund due diligence on the patents within MPEG-4
> and/or H.26L?  I would support a 3rd party evaluation, and I'm sure that
> many other members of M$IF would support it as well.  There is so much
> FUD in this space, it is hard to know what is real and what is
> confusion.
>
> Jordan

[snip]
> We are trying to confirm that what the people in the field believe
> to be true: there is no IP on SA.
> To gain more confidence, we will try to seek evidence to the contrary.
> If such evidence does not turn up, then SA implementers will be able to
> live with a little more comfort. If evidence does turn up, we will try
> to get licensing on RAND terms established by acting in our catalyst
> capacity.
>
> Best,
> Rob