Re: [rtcweb] VP8 IPR agreement announced.

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.

Rob

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 (http://www.w3.org/2001/07/SVG10-IPR-statements) 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 
> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Requirements 
> - 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
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb