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

David Singer <> Wed, 03 December 2014 21:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B666C1A7028 for <>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 13:07:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.011
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MANGLED_OFF=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FxBUBauQg5VZ for <>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 13:07:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 593AF1A6FFE for <>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 13:07:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256;; s=mailout2048s; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt;; t=1417640861; x=2281554461; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-id:To:Cc:MIME-version:Content-type: Content-transfer-encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-reply-to:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=eKgHEeGCpNRdADfOvHpD3C7sWyYqxPfbHMGqI4B3Fjg=; b=y3IU/l4LsU4Xd24ZUiZgRjxeWLvcbgh7oQjNW/KsN2xCtmFE01O4l/oJrJ+GQnN+ n/G6aWirGQ85uCVLZwsyLvVSC2HBdhZDn4fOV3A2QR+CUTeSQ1DJhRL74b9IlLr2 /jiyvaC9K579e9jVlnSS950sOGlq9p9lneWqHaE691mlsCSlglvXdmt+ftqRDScR pEUayFtldci/8plB5hkcK5WJBUqMxW4IKrG8Vz64z81xyJ5MQiXz0y3RI0Wc99O/ DlBheGPJS/nt3IsEUBevJNFcDohB6hNuKa7pmUtFIVWIuqUvrFlXStGiA27yxl59 MN4oQ8P+Qzf4doCqj0dI9w==;
Received: from ( []) by (Apple Secure Mail Relay) with SMTP id 84.81.18976.D9B7F745; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 13:07:41 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 11973e11-f79a66d000004a20-bb-547f7b9d5959
Received: from ( []) (using TLS with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 71.47.06123.F9B7F745; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 13:07:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 64bit (built Oct 22 2013)) with ESMTPSA id <> for; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 13:07:41 -0800 (PST)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.0 \(1990.1\))
From: David Singer <>
In-reply-to: <>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 13:07:41 -0800
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Message-id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: Sergio Garcia Murillo <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1990.1)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrILMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FAYoTu3uj7EYG+vqcXaf+3sDoweS5b8 ZApgjOKySUnNySxLLdK3S+DK2L53P1PBLqmKa1vfMTYwbhHtYuTkkBAwkZhx9ws7hC0mceHe ejYQW0hgL6PEkz5+mJqnpyYydjFyAcUnMUm0zP/PDOHMZ5J4O+0zUDcHB7OAusSUKbkgDbwC BhK3zsxgBLGFBSIkjnSeAVvAJqAq8WDOMbA4p4CmxOnv51hBbBag+JstZ5lAbGYBYYnvj++x QNjaEk/eXWCFmGkj0bwepB5k7w5GiYuXl4IlRASsJR79f8wCcam8xJwLJ9hAiiQEPrJKLGg7 zjaBUXgWwn2zkNw3C8mOBYzMqxiFchMzc3Qz84z0EgsKclL1kvNzNzGCwni6neAOxuOrrA4x CnAwKvHwPoiuCxFiTSwrrsw9xCjNwaIkzpuUXR8iJJCeWJKanZpakFoUX1Sak1p8iJGJg1Oq gTF9g0yDaBbTYu/Dkodrfp3wMX3unPHxeN9uw8aTCqukZ+iwmq+YHVV7gVHn25VfktkrL+ve 3W3Ad60geqWR+eTTyna1/EZMRUGP/5euDTJdUOz422jy19w/mc9PNs/+O23Kxf2vT6V/4spy 3FqTtKP7ftVSkS8Gzotu/q2QvtnK8IX93aMj8ZxKLMUZiYZazEXFiQBk/uH5RAIAAA==
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrKLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FDcoju/uj7E4OV3ZYu1/9rZHRg9liz5 yRTAGMVlk5Kak1mWWqRvl8CVsX3vfqaCXVIV17a+Y2xg3CLaxcjJISFgIvH01ERGCFtM4sK9 9WxdjFwcQgKTmCRa5v9nhnDmM0m8nfaZvYuRg4NZQF1iypRckAZeAQOJW2dmgDULC0RIHOk8 ww5iswmoSjyYcwwszimgKXH6+zlWEJsFKP5my1kmEJtZQFji++N7LBC2tsSTdxdYIWbaSDSv B6kH2buDUeLi5aVgCREBa4lH/x+zQFwqLzHnwgm2CYwCsxBOmoXkpFlIxi5gZF7FKFCUmpNY aaqXWFCQk6qXnJ+7iREceIUROxj/L7M6xCjAwajEw/sgui5EiDWxrLgy9xCjBAezkgivdV59 iBBvSmJlVWpRfnxRaU5q8SFGaQ4WJXHeqmyglEB6YklqdmpqQWoRTJaJg1OqgXGJ10R/47KZ uTPWHPr1afM5T6kfGl5c9xhkgrY8Wh5xqjYgavmSTXkrCvdn/VIU1sn+b3362kMmm5s319wx qOdZeZuVi/tP/OV7LzQ8/8a7tnLFC/ZtPjMxceOrgpeZOp7ZTds1CzatUXt+V6mofOXBhj7e r5LcwjxHZJqvfYv5cfFpFMO9vCVKLMUZiYZazEXFiQAk3lNqOAIAAA==
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 21:07:57 -0000

> On Dec 3, 2014, at 11:28 , Sergio Garcia Murillo <> wrote:
> A copy of this email should be placed directly in the wikipedia definition of FUD..

There is plenty of F here.  But there is little U and little D. The Nokia statement exists and license grants of the type I cite are common. Heck, the license given to MPEG-4 *reference software* says this:

"ISO/IEC gives users of MPEG-4 free license to this
software module or modifications thereof for use in hardware 
or software products claiming conformance to MPEG-4.”

You want to put yourself at risk, go right ahead.  Please don’t ask that the IETF mandate that others put themselves at risk.

> Best regards
> Sergio
> On 03/12/2014 19:33, David Singer 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 do not think that the IETF should be placing anyone into the position of having three extremely unpalatable choices.
>> (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
>> David Singer
>> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list

Dave Singer

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.