Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options (was: Re: confirming sense of the room: mti codec)

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 10 December 2014 21:59 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AC901A0155 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:59:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oEWGJ30oaLJd for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:59:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x230.google.com (mail-oi0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6237B1A1B13 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:59:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-f48.google.com with SMTP id u20so2778383oif.35 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:59:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AiEvxgTFpFougtEHLDAG4+Wqi1i1rB+e8qFIJh8wL0k=; b=ZtKkFlsmuYwULnJvY0mV+P4Yd3Elv1pTJOGiSMws7e+tWB/3vBi7khP7EayZjgOJKJ BDeW4kdN9C/fiTcvBtr2n0jMtkFeuWpRCOIxl/XzTHgHyjV1Cw1NfcAk6X5/2Ng/sTsZ zfP38tKO24kRjepMJ6wNSkt5pY487Bn9H3PiLGu7TCMTA+Mgg0A6wlrfumnW461jTf2n MqgcMSLjTXQBJm3eXTuSH0lD5Aw75XunrqmVlZ3kTNNtf8lIsOQZgg3/japKjUhib07C gv8i+dkIaKuS+Wcsiqs0yZjBxS56ZpVIVmg/KelwaP949UxrL0op0/PdsXD/xByoHXgO GCJA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.111.3 with SMTP id m3mr3986313oic.16.1418248745674; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:59:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.202.107.19 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:59:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <87d27r9o0a.fsf_-_@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com> <54820E74.90201@mozilla.com> <54861AD6.8090603@reavy.org> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233998AC05@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <63BC3D6D-03A1-41C2-B92D-C8DD57DC51DB@nostrum.com> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233998ADF1@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <87d27r9o0a.fsf_-_@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:59:05 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVYNjYAM=WhpuURHMUkU4mtT7E3a5yvqSG7+fGKXKOoNw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/48E--nAsTgnZjd6oCBDr7O-GPOQ
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options (was: Re: confirming sense of the room: mti codec)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 21:59:12 -0000

On 10 December 2014 at 13:46, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> This rules out commercial use.  Doesn't this fail the “reasonable”
> part of RAND because it is expected that commercial end users obtain a
> separate patent license of their own (which is not part of a product
> that can be purchased)?  If this is still considered “reasonable”, is
> the fact relevant that all published MPEG-LA material about H.264
> refers to patent licensing in a broadcasting context (either the
> production side, or the receiver side)?  This strongly suggests to me
> that they may lack the rights to license H.264 for use in video
> conferencing applications.

I recommend that you consult counsel on these sorts of questions.
Seeking legal opinion on an internet mailing list might not produce
the best results.