Re: [rtcweb] H.264 IPR status (RE: VP8 litigation in Germany?)

Ted Hardie <> Tue, 12 March 2013 14:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8959B21F8BEA for <>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.584
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.584 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IRu9iyN8cfzU for <>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c02::22c]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06B3F21F8BE0 for <>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id l29so4849824iag.17 for <>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=/6cdlUavzJ/YLe0VKEguRPvFi3IWiZCu/NDGCooyYiQ=; b=ErX/MWhdC+ehv5sogGNF0BGdVEo+Zmoa0ZY8OVPDjTX+1l3ytL9LO4JeZTp3mPcuQp vIf+Ouxy0URN3Jc+u58o3PIGup90oDaF2HiTbQ5qBhEfBr9hbPi2kU5p433bFafBCI7d 4kf9nk+0zg5OM2oYZ1eSKrk4WmSMBjTIXG6F1gbJIZ0GHxDh4FLJqwzWkj5WSmt2SFHL 8sQ1HMd2+7caHjXiyvkO8tl4/P82G8fODl9y7VqUaNK8Yo4QqO5LWs7eFFKKnMIlbTQq xdacy9RgouBd6aC+XFvOOnvZX5Vp74XE5SX6HbE3kScj2ZBUIcwUvfq5zyjHHjRvNvG6 91VQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id ee9mr11877460igc.96.1363099653452; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:47:33 -0400
Message-ID: <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.264 IPR status (RE: VP8 litigation in Germany?)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:47:34 -0000

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:19 AM,  <> wrote:

> Please see the URLs posted earlier today by Harald and Stephan, > and the summary of H.264 IPR situation by Stephan.

I actually wasn't able to find license text at any of those; Stephan's
message indicated that they did vary (since apparently some mention
reciprocity and some do not).  So it really would be helpful if the
data that an IETF disclosure would provide (patents + license) were
available in a simple form for the working group to review.

 >Are you asking for this about Nokia specifically, or for all of the
> H.264 proponents (several affiliations) or for H.264 in general?
> Nokia is certainly no special case in that context.

I certainly encourage *anyone* with data that helps the working group
make this decision to bring it forward.  Thanks to you and Nokia for
your willingness to do so.


Ted Hardie