Re: [rtcweb] Google VP8 Patent Grant for third parties [Was Re:Proposal for H.263 baseline codec]

"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Wed, 04 April 2012 02:45 UTC

Return-Path: <paulej@packetizer.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCEC511E809B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 19:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.674
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.674 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.276, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BZ0RVeab4qa4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 19:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 930C011E8072 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 19:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sydney (rrcs-98-101-148-48.midsouth.biz.rr.com [98.101.148.48]) (authenticated bits=0) by dublin.packetizer.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q342joVR010555 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Apr 2012 22:45:51 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1333507551; bh=7QXvDCx8DNsBNdIKSSFv/Dm85yPU32VGohNW/uqEkvI=; h=From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=bhrnYHSLbMuFs9SoqxNYZedfk5HjM0Oj+dQkKdLgckrVe0X9EEbWLVbiiPAnSHx7e fscfk9mHXAe6s9rOng/xalyGnKeyLuvRX8nRoiYNwROAcWYA97qbwx3SmW8VGwcC+0 V531xQZXSnUxxgiYEe09Fx5Yup8bu1ctK3VnpJBo=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: "'Serge Lachapelle'" <sergel@google.com>, <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <CAMKM2Ly-xnVEciL941uOu1Bgwc-wssZ7HNkQuBhsCcgyqfuk5Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMKM2Ly-xnVEciL941uOu1Bgwc-wssZ7HNkQuBhsCcgyqfuk5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 22:45:56 -0400
Message-ID: <03ac01cd120d$0ffe95f0$2ffbc1d0$@packetizer.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_03AD_01CD11EB.88EF66F0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQB2060nC5aqi+YrENoaiW0zV5P0Jpk2coDA
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Google VP8 Patent Grant for third parties [Was Re:Proposal for H.263 baseline codec]
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 02:45:53 -0000

Will Google indemnify all implementers against any IPR claims?  Do that, and
I think the debate would be over.

 

Paul

 

From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Serge Lachapelle
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 1:55 PM
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: [rtcweb] Google VP8 Patent Grant for third parties [Was Re:Proposal
for H.263 baseline codec]

 

[Forking the thread]

 

Hello folks,


Google confirms that the VP8 patent grant applies to both third-party
hardware and software implementations of VP8. 

 

Google encourages the community to create hardware implementations of VP8,
and has recently blogged about a number of new hardware implementations on
the WebM blog (
http://blog.webmproject.org/2012/03/webm-gaining-momentum-in-hardware.html
). 

 

Google is quite proud of what the community has done with VP8 and looks
forward to seeing more implementations of VP8 in both hardware and software.


 

Regards,

 

/Serge Lachapelle, Google, Stockholm

 

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 16:53, Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> wrote:



On 3.29.2012 16:24 , "Basil Mohamed Gohar" <basilgohar@librevideo.org>
wrote:


>On 03/29/2012 10:20 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>> The second part of your sentence may or may not be true, depending on
>>your
>> relationship with google, your willingness to use the webm
>>implementation
>> in unchanged form, and other factors.  Please see the webm license
>> conditions, which AFAIK can be found here:
>> http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/
>Correct.  I think you are referring to this part, explicitly:
>> If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree
>> to the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including
>> a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that this
>> implementation of VP8 or any code incorporated within this
>> implementation of VP8 constitutes direct or contributory patent
>> infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any patent
>> rights granted to you under this License for this implementation of
>> VP8 shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
>Perhaps I assumed that that is a very reasonable part of the license.
>That is, if you are suing someone alleging a patent infringement within
>VP8, you are no longer granted the license to use VP8's patented
>technologies that Google owns.

Yes, that's one issue.  Call it personal preference for different type of
reciprocity conditions :-)  (I could rant about it for hours, but let's
continue to pretend that this is mostly a technical mailing list)

The other issue, though (the fact that the license grant extends only to
the VP8 implementation as provided by google, and does not extent to
derivative works such as hardware implementations) should be moderately
alarming even for an open source person.  With respect to this clause, I
will note that I criticized the licensing conditions in private and in
public (IETF mike) several times, months ago, and nothing happened.
Suggests to me one of three things: (1) google is a large company and
decisions take time, or (2) google's legal is currently occupied with
other stuff, or (3) that the choice of language is intentional, and
intended to prevent forks.  Take your pick.
Stephan


>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>


_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb> Google Sweden AB | Kungsbron
2, SE-111 22 Stockholm | Org. nr. 556656-6880 

Apparently, this footer is required in Europe. Apologies. This email may be
confidential or privileged.  If you received this communication by mistake,
please don't forward it to anyone else,please erase all copies and
attachments, and please let me know that it went to the wrong person.
Thanks.





 

-- 
Serge Lachapelle | Product Manager | sergel@google.com | +46 732 01 22 32



 

-- 

Serge Lachapelle | Product Manager | sergel@google.com | +46 732 01 22 32

Google Sweden AB | Kungsbron 2, SE-111 22 Stockholm | Org. nr. 556656-6880 

Apparently, this footer is required in Europe. Apologies. This email may be
confidential or privileged.  If you received this communication by mistake,
please don't forward it to anyone else,please erase all copies and
attachments, and please let me know that it went to the wrong person.
Thanks.