Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)

[Silvia Pfeiffer <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 7:52 AM, David Singer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 4, 2014, at 12:40 , Silvia Pfeiffer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5 Dec 2014 07:30, "David Singer" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > > On Dec 4, 2014, at 12:20 , Silvia Pfeiffer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 5 Dec 2014 06:25, "David Singer" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > On Dec 3, 2014, at 21:16 , Silvia Pfeiffer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Indeed, that's why I said point 1. in David's list doesn't make sense, since he's talking about a small company getting sued by Nokia.
>> > > >
>> > > > So, your conclusion to my question is “Ship VP8, most of you probably won’t get sued. Good luck.  Try not to be too successful or your luck may change.”
>> > >
>> > > Yes and it's the same answer as for h.264 and h.265 for that matter.
>> >
>> > It is not at all.  Where are the “unwilling to license” statements for H.264?  Where is the VP8 license coverage from the larger players not in the MPEG-LA agreement?
>> >
>> > > Only add to that the extra licence fee you heavy to pay, which is a certainty - the risk of getting sued is uncertain and frankly quite small compared to other risks that you take as a small company.
>>
>> That can very nicely be construed as anticompetitive behaviour I would think in my layman knowledge. It certainly doesn't look like playing fair.
>
> Sorry, I can’t work out what you say is not playing fair?  Using someone else’s patents and assuming that they will give everyone a license?

"unwilling to license" doesn't seem like they even want to make money
with their patents. Since that is limited to patents that apply to one
codec and not to any other codec, I can only interpret that as playing
unfair. Note that this is my personal opinion and I don't think taking
this discussion any further is useful in any way. :-)

Silvia.