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

Ron <> Mon, 08 December 2014 09:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E504B1A8032 for <>; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 01:05:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e7bm4_Su9ucm for <>; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 01:05:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 158441A8731 for <>; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 01:05:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (HELO mailservice.shelbyville.oz) ([]) by with ESMTP; 08 Dec 2014 19:35:05 +1030
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by mailservice.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD0C7FFC64 for <>; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 19:35:04 +1030 (ACDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mailservice.shelbyville.oz
Received: from mailservice.shelbyville.oz ([]) by localhost (mailservice.shelbyville.oz []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id QCk5gUW9wlYV for <>; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 19:35:00 +1030 (ACDT)
Received: from hex.shelbyville.oz (hex.shelbyville.oz []) by mailservice.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FDA8FF904 for <>; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 19:35:00 +1030 (ACDT)
Received: by hex.shelbyville.oz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EC52380470; Mon, 8 Dec 2014 19:34:59 +1030 (ACDT)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 19:34:59 +1030
From: Ron <>
Message-ID: <20141208090459.GD19538@hex.shelbyville.oz>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 09:05:28 -0000

On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 05:16:08AM +0000, Andrew Allen wrote:
> > From: rtcweb [] On Behalf Of Roman Shpount
> > Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2014 11:41 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)
> > 
> > There were a lot of arguments here about the Nokia IPR declaration
> > regarding VP8. IANAL, but typically there is a very simple way to
> > determine the validity of the IPR claim. It comes down to one simple
> > question -- Have the party claiming IPR violation filed the law suite?
> > If not, their claims most likely do not justify the court filing fees
> > in their own eyes. Mozilla and Google have been shipping browsers with
> > VP8 codec support for several years already and Nokia did not do a
> > single thing to stop this. If Nokia is serious about their IPR claims,
> > they should take the alleged violators to court. At least this way
> > there is going to be a definitive decision regarding the validity of
> > these claims.
> I don’t think that proves anything.
> Any basic military doctrine on the tactics of ambush is going to state
> that you don’t go after the lead elements especially if they are the
> stronger armored elements that are most capable of beating back the
> attack – no you bide your time and wait until the follow on troops
> that are far less able to withstand the attack come along and then
> mount your assault – ripping them to shreads and thus leaving those
> more powerful lead elements cut off and surrounded with no path to
> retreat!

While that's a very interesting analysis of the kind of panicked thought
processes going on among the rearguard participants from blackberry, it's
not clear to me exactly what relevance you think it has here.

Are you saying that Nokia is not only bad at business, bad at keeping
their talented staff, and bad at community relations - but that they
also suck at military strategy too?

Because they launched their attack, and got laughed out of court ...

Maybe you are suggesting that was just a clever ruse, and rather than
using their actually valid patent, they wasted all that money on lawyers
to simply feint with the weakest one they could find?

In which case I hope for their sake that they've kept their good lawyers
in reserve for when their shareholders come wanting to rip them to shreds!

  If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself,
  you are certain to be in peril.
    -- Sun Tzu