Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

On 12/05/2014 12:02 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> Both yours and David's responses to this are outside the IPR gathering exercise that forms part of the standards process.
>
> The idea of the standards process is that a group of vendors etc write a standard, they are forced to declare their IPR involved in that standard. If the population is sufficiently large you stand a good chance of identifying all the worldwide IPR relating to that standard.
>
> The bigger the standards organisation, with the greater coverage of all the vendors in that space, the better the process works.
>
> So at that level, IPR knowledge for codecs is primarily on the decoder space and what IPR exists there.
>
> What Tim is saying (and a somewhat parallel situation exists with MPEG LA) is that a limited set of organisations will limit your IPR problems and give you some help with the encoder IPR. For VP8 that is limited to Google's IPR and any background research they may have done.
And, of course, the IPR owned by signatories to the license agreement 
that Google has sublicensed through the WebM CCL: 
http://www.webm-ccl.org/vp8/agreement/

>   For MPEG LA it is limited to the members of the pool, which is only a subset of those involved in the parallel standards process. Yes it helps, but it does not have the degree of confidence of identifying all the existing IPR that the standards process would do.
>
> Regards
>
> Keith
>