Subject: Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal
From: Matthew Kaufman <[email-masked]>
To: Roman Shpount <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:29:40 -0800
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>

On 11/10/2014 4:25 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Matthew Kaufman <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     We may be tired of this, but it isn't like we have a royalty-free
>     option for H.264 MPEG-LA or IP risk indemnification from Google..
>     So what's changed for the browser makers?
>
>
> May be I am missing something, but MPEG-LA does not provide IP risk 
> indemnification for H.264. All they sell is a very limited license to 
> the patent pool from the group members.

I am not my employer's lawyers, nor am I the lawyers for any of the 
other folks who've spoken up about the IPR issues over the years. But 
these folks apparently feel that there's something different between 
"specification developed in an open standards process" + "licenses to 
listed IPR available from patent pool" and "some code Google says is 
free" for whatever reasons they have.

You'd have to ask them to see why that's different.

Matthew Kaufman