Re: [rtcweb] Confirmation of consensus on audio codecs

"Richard Shockey" <> Sat, 18 August 2012 18:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C3C321F8495 for <>; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 11:12:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.585
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.179, BAYES_20=-0.74, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LAxzqSZ8RLjS for <>; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 11:12:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 88A3221F848F for <>; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 11:12:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 3042 invoked by uid 0); 18 Aug 2012 18:12:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ( by with SMTP; 18 Aug 2012 18:12:04 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:To:From; bh=nD8OADEDxtANKBlh0IhNWWjefE2/noYmnWfhrl1qhcc=; b=SSIXXrGc7/gs1LCPgGjZt/70eWBqvIX8gWlfv50yCarbXBRmUbT+haB/VcFsL/IMgqRd/mLAArHh/d8fpeEaxjnrqpQgF+57fZ/Vnj1cCbHQBe+QkS5jQ2zleKJuEnc0;
Received: from [] (port=55304 helo=RSHOCKEYPC) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <>) id 1T2nVE-0003IK-DX; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 12:12:04 -0600
From: Richard Shockey <>
To: 'Basil Mohamed Gohar' <>,
References: <> <000801cd7c06$2de34710$89a9d530$@us> <> <001901cd7c19$03abf4c0$0b03de40$@us> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:12:01 -0400
Message-ID: <001e01cd7d6c$f79bdf60$e6d39e20$@us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac18tBwKHGFN+4YpT9WMTChQewz5/QAuKcyw
Content-Language: en-us
X-Identified-User: {} {sentby:smtp auth authed with}
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Confirmation of consensus on audio codecs
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, 18 Aug 2012 18:12:32 -0000

Well nip on this for a while .. a simple search against "VP8 intellectual
property issues" brings up some interesting points.  It only takes one suit.

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of
Basil Mohamed Gohar
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Confirmation of consensus on audio codecs

On 08/16/2012 09:38 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:
> SOOO WRONG .. just do a simple search.  It just hasn't been fully 
> litigated ...yet.
It's impossible for something to be fully litigated.  Even someone licensing
H.264 through MPEG-LA is liable to be sued, as Motorola has taught us, and
the promises from the cartel hold no guarantees for their future.

The condition you are placing on VP8 is impossible to meet and falsely
assumed to apply to H.264.  What is real is that H.264 has a licensing
situation that excludes implementation in a free software context in most
places of the world that will use it, and VP8 does not.

Now, this is a discussion about the audio codecs, but FUD is FUD and needs
to be nipped in the bud.
rtcweb mailing list