[rtcweb] WebVC licensing issues (Re: Congratuiations on the Cisco announcement - but we still prefer VP8)

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

Changing the subject, since this is a different topic to where we started
the thread.
It is also perhaps somewhat irrelevant to the rtcweb mailing list.

The public statement is the public statement of Motorola Mobility, just
like the Microsoft public statement (also type 2) is the public statement
of Microsoft.

If you want more information than what's given in the statement, you have
to ask the persons who made the statement.
Which is not me - that's really all I was saying.

(One of the things I've been surprised about in the discussions of WebVC is
that the proponents have not seemed to have any plan to resolve the issue
of the Type 2 filings they have received. I'm not sure what such a plan
would consist of - but my inability to see how we could resolve this issue
is a major reason why I don't have a strong belief that this project can
actually achieve its stated goals.)

          Harald


On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 1:18 AM, David Singer <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> On Nov 8, 2013, at 6:27 , Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > Krasimir, if you want to discuss licenses with the Motorola Mobility
> lawyers, the contact details are in the filing.
>
> Is there anything ambiguous or unclear that would warrant discussion?  The
> statement seems fairly straightforward.  And generally, in the standards
> bodies we work on what is formally said, not what we might learn in
> hypothetical side-conversations.
>
> > My impression when I asked them to file something was that the status of
> that project didn't even enter into consideration when they decided how to
> respond - but I'm not going to speak for them. If you want to know, call
> them.
>
> It's not Krasimir who wants to know, it's all of us.  The public statement
> is presumed to be your public statement.
>
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>