Re: [rtcweb] H.264 IPR disclosures (or persistent lack thereof)

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

On 12/16/2013 01:50 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> I'm not sure exactly where you are trying to take this discussion.
>
> If you are implying that the IPR for either of the two codec specifications is unknown, then we MUST stop any decision making process until it is known, because the WG is bound to take that status into account in making its decision.
>
> But I believe the chairs have stated in prior meetings that the IPR is known, and noone has contradicted that on the list or in the meeting, and where to find it has been reiterated time and time again, in the meeting, on mailing lists and in documents.
>
> And you yourself do not seem to be pointing at any IPR coverage that you know of that has not been publically identified.
>
> The only doubts I have heard about absence of IPR disclosure is specifically against the VP8 codec, with the contention that as the specification has only recently been submitted to ISO, many ISO participants may still be evaluating their patent portfolio against it.
>
> Of course if you really do want an IETF IPR disclosure under way, then submit a draft that makes both codecs mandatory and asks for it to be a WG item. The codec declarations will have to be made against that document. But do you really believe that will produce any surprise declarations.
>
> That draft WG document at the moment does not exist.
Keith, it is completely unclear to me why such a draft would cause more
disclosures to come forth, given that we have one draft proposing
declaring H.264 CBP mandatory that caused no IPR disclosures, and
another draft proposing declaring VP8 mandatory that, again, caused no
IPR disclosures.

It's not lack of drafts that causes the lack of disclosures, as far as I
can tell.