Re: [rtcweb] VP8 IPR agreement announced.

Rob Glidden <> Sat, 09 March 2013 20:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B52621F87D6 for <>; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 12:22:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.222
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.222 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.377, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RwDejPJ-sYIL for <>; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 12:22:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::235]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3C4521F84BE for <>; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 12:22:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id q3so445363yhf.40 for <>; Sat, 09 Mar 2013 12:21:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=/HBrHl6Z0vJYK7oqsqn0RCUqIZ0+lI5AK1Y0xZENsrs=; b=EjC4T04Yn3mwTGiSMtRvIKo8EBCd4567BFfSQJvPZaYdgBJLuEl1Fy+KiKJUL0Bu7u j+6S5PPaZmbAhs5W2pFNrvekM8rW5rsUvUfjiR/v1hU05T7BPdHvmK4W7vrDkbbt0GCq rTgkMLX6Gg4zWXvH2MUGRa3OfJxVwXs3RO0CjlnJjFvWpg40qjn/KpQ0hpMvQABbglPN VsnLMq4RWxM8g56DrirLZ1KU2J/wRrqL89fMLA5X3eWTFMqAh/GhgmpCosY6nO20A7GX idoIHnRUMJQqCNNEDIGWqGC6tflAalgvE+Fk2E01vRdneCGO6YLYFX5TwXpvoHGj/RVW Qypg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id o21mr5255983yhj.55.1362860511904; Sat, 09 Mar 2013 12:21:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPS id k45sm15081319yhd.2.2013. (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 09 Mar 2013 12:21:50 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2013 12:21:46 -0800
From: Rob Glidden <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130215 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Harald Alvestrand <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090401080801020109030009"
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] VP8 IPR agreement announced.
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: Sat, 09 Mar 2013 20:22:04 -0000

Interesting.  Potential licensees will be aided by the provision of a 
clear list of the portfolio patents, said the 1997 US Department of 
Justice review letter of MPEG LA.

ISO/MPEG IPR rules are clear that proposers must ask for, and rights 
holders must provide, patent statements for a proposal to proceed.


On 3/9/2013 2:08 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> On 03/08/2013 09:14 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>> Hi Serge,
>> This is a great development for VP8.  Congratulations.  I'm sure it 
>> took a few cycles and dollars to get something like this arranged.  I 
>> wish your PR would have come out a bit earlier, but licensing 
>> discussions do take time...  So better now than never.
>> I want to ask two more pieces of information that would allow me to 
>> put this announcement into context.
>> First, who are those 11 rightholders?  I'm sure you agree that, in 
>> order to make a meaningful risk assessment, that information is needed.
> Stephan, at the moment, we have no agreement with the rightsholders 
> that permits us to disclose their names. We're discussing that topic 
> with them, but we will not name them without an agreement to do so.
> Of course, the rightsholders are free to disclose themselves.
>> Second, the link provided to "preview" the possible sublicensing 
>> terms ( lists a bunch 
>> of company statements that vary widely among the rightholders listed 
>> there, which do not include google.  It would be great if you could 
>> provide more specific information as early as possible, especially 
>> with respect to the essential claims definition and the reciprocity 
>> conditions.  That does not have to be final legal text, but should be 
>> a clear indication of your business intentions.  To me, term-sheet 
>> level is OK.
> That link was a bit weird - the real W3C definition of "royalty-free" 
> is 
> - I think the intent of the link was that if you don't find any of the 
> RF terms listed on that page objectionable, you'll not find the Google 
> RF terms objectionable either.
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list