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

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

Andrew,

This discussion is kind of silly. We should be investing as much energy 
into disproving Nokia's IP claim as they have invested into proving it 
is valid: none at all. The fact that they haven't provided a shred of 
evidence after repeated public inquiries will be used against them in a 
court of law, should it ever come up.

Gili

On 04/12/2014 10:43 AM, Andrew Allen wrote:
> Silvia
>
> I think the risk for small companies is if they suddenly have a 
> successful product and have revenue that they then become a target. 
> Plenty of cash flow to go after without the experience and resources 
> to fight off the lawsuit.
>
> My point was the fact that small companies may have implemented VP8 
> without yet becoming engaged in a lawsuit does not prove  that VP8 is RF.
>
> Andrew
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
> *From: *Silvia Pfeiffer
> *Sent: *Wednesday, December 3, 2014 23:17
> *To: *Andrew Allen
> *Cc: *David Singer; [e-mail]
> *Subject: *Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI 
> (again, still, sorry)
>
>
> Indeed, that's why I said point 1. in David's list doesn't make sense, 
> since he's talking about a small company getting sued by Nokia.
> S.
>
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Andrew Allen <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Silvia
>
>     It  is not usually the small companies that get sued in patent
>     cases. Its companies with assets and significant revenues that get
>     the lawsuits.
>
>     Nobody sues the  penniless! - thats like suing the homeless!
>
>     Andrew
>
>     Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
>     *From: *Silvia Pfeiffer
>     *Sent: *Wednesday, December 3, 2014 19:28
>     *To: *David Singer
>     *Cc: *[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Subject: *Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI
>     (again, still, sorry)
>
>
>     On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:33 AM, David Singer <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>     > As I understand it, the recent face to face meeting decided to
>     draft the requirement that WebRTC browsers be required to
>     implement both VP8 and H.264, and get feedback on this, on the list.
>     >
>     > This is some feedback.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > I’d like to point out that this could easily place companies in
>     an impossible position.
>     >
>     > Consider: it is not uncommon for IPR owners to grant a license
>     (often free) only to ‘conforming implementations’. (A common
>     rationale is that they want to use their IPR to bring convergence
>     and interoperability to the industry).  Let’s hypothesize that
>     this happens, now or in future, from Company X, for some IPR in
>     the WebRTC specifications.
>     >
>     > Consider also: we have an “unwilling to license” statement from
>     Nokia on VP8, on the formal record (and including a long list of
>     patents).
>     >
>     > Consider finally: a small company for whom WebRTC is important.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Let’s look at the choices:
>     >
>     > 1.  Follow the mandate, implement VP8, and risk a ruinous
>     lawsuit from Nokia.
>     >
>     > 2.  Reject the mandate, do not implement VP8, and be formally
>     therefore not conformant and therefore not in receipt of a license
>     from company X; risk a ruinous lawsuit from X.
>     >
>     > 3.  Do not implement WebRTC, and risk a ruinous loss of relevance.
>
>
>     I don't see the risk of 1. having changed because of the IETF's
>     statement. Plenty of small companies are already doing 1. and have had
>     to risk getting sued by Nokia at this point in time already. In fact,
>     it's a risk that small companies always have to deal with since there
>     is so much patented technology around that you invariable will step on
>     something. I doubt very much that the IETF's decision has any impact
>     on small business' risk in that space at all.
>
>
>     > I do not think that the IETF should be placing anyone into the
>     position of having three extremely unpalatable choices.
>
>     For a small company in the WebRTC space, 3. is a non-choice. 2. Is
>     more of a business decision than an IP decision - which market are you
>     trying to address? Are you trying to be interoperable with (current)
>     browsers - then implement VP8. Are you trying to be interoperable with
>     legacy devices - then implement H.264 (and probably even H.263).
>
>     If you are trying to argue for a large company, the situation changes.
>     However, as a large company, you tend to have an existing portfolio of
>     patents. You're already playing the game of patents. As long as your
>     hypothetical "IPR owners to grant a license only to ‘conforming
>     implementations’" doesn't happen, you are free to choose 2. and avoid
>     Nokia.
>
>     As for the threat in your option 2. - I can only see Google with IPR
>     around VP8. Now, Google's IPR statement on WebM codecs, which includes
>     VP8 and VP9 currently states: "Google hereby grants to you a
>     perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free,
>     irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license"
>     http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/
>     The word "perpetual" implies (to my non-lawyer eyes) that they can't
>     suddenly change this to mean "only if you are conformant to the
>     standard". So you can't be referring to such a risk associated with
>     VP8 being created by Google. I don't know which other company you
>     would want to be afraid of for your hypothetical threat in 2. Could
>     you clarify?
>
>
>     Best Regards,
>     Silvia.
>
>
>     > (Yes, I am aware that #2 is ‘unlikely’, but one day someone will
>     decide that the “only to conformant implementations” clause needs
>     to be real and enforced, and will do this; our hypothetical small
>     company might prefer not to be the example case.)
>     >
>     > (I use a small company as the example, because for them the risk
>     is bankruptcy, but of course no-one likes to step into the path of
>     trouble even if they have the resources to weather it.)
>     >
>     > Dave Singer
>     >
>     > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     >
>     > David Singer
>     > Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > rtcweb mailing list
>     > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     rtcweb mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb