Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 631681ACE3D for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:29:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bfpKgDyUGKpJ for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:29:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.eeph.com (mail.eeph.com [IPv6:2001:470:826a:d2::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54E8C1ACDEB for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:29:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.20.14.50] (unknown [12.1.203.3]) (Authenticated sender: matthew@eeph.com) by mail.eeph.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F27C0464CA6; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:29:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54619EC4.2070802@matthew.at> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:29:40 -0800 From: Matthew Kaufman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roman Shpount References: <54601E19.8080203@nostrum.com> <176316D6-D685-45F4-AA8E-A4F07521CAE4@matthew.at> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070202010200050800000206" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/8JpbJDQA9aNk7QekeoGmaNDYooM Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org 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: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 05:29:42 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070202010200050800000206 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 11/10/2014 4:25 PM, Roman Shpount wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Matthew Kaufman > 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 --------------070202010200050800000206 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 11/10/2014 4:25 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> 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
--------------070202010200050800000206--