Hi, Regardless of the exact status of the PLC IPR, I don't think it would be a good idea to just say that "the Internet should just follow ITU-T standards with a 20-year lag". As it has been already shown with the codec proposals received to date, it should be possible to create RF codecs that are *much* better than G.722 and G.711.
Jean-Marc Quoting Steve Underwood <ste...@coppice.org>: > On 01/11/2010 11:00 PM, Christian Hoene wrote: > > Dear Herve Taddei, > > > > > >> Besides, I don't think you would have any trouble to propose at ITU-T some > >> new appendices to G.711 and G.722 that could fit your goals. An appendix > is > >> non normative (a bit like the informative reference to G.711 PLC in iLBC). > >> By the way, if I am not wrong, some basic ITU-T G.722 PLCs are RF. > >> > > This was my understanding, too. > > > The G.722 spec is 23 years old, so it would be difficult for any of the > patents on that spec to still be valid. The ITU patent database does > list US patent 5528629 as related to G.722, but I assume this is an > error. The patent dates from so long after G.722 came out, and its > contents do not appear relevant to G.722. However, the recent additions > for PLC are: > > G.722 (1988) App IV - Broadcom has claims > G.722 Appendix III - Broadcom has claims > G.722 Appendix IV - France Telecom has claims. > > Have you seen any clear statements that those patents may be used > royalty free? > > Steve > > _______________________________________________ > codec mailing list > co...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
