Re: [rtcweb] Google VP8 Patent Grant for third parties [Was Re:Proposal for H.263 baseline codec]

I hate auto-correct.

"even both" --> "even bother"
"owner fely that" --> "owner felt that"
...

I hope the text can be parsed by most ;-)

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Paul E. Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 11:49 PM
> To: 'Olle E. Johansson'; 'Kevin P. Fleming'
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Google VP8 Patent Grant for third parties [Was
> Re:Proposal for H.263 baseline codec]
> 
> Olle,
> 
> > 12 apr 2012 kl. 18:09 skrev Kevin P. Fleming:
> >
> > > On 04/12/2012 02:21 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
> > >
> > >> This is really bad news for Open Source. Even if we try to get a
> > >> way to
> > pay for licenses, our business model is far away from understandable
> > for most of the syndicates. I tried with the AMR codec once and it
> > stopped at initial order quantity. Anything under 10.000 licenses was
> > not up for discussion.
> 
> Would a patent holder even both with litigation if the patent owner fely
> that licensing in quantities of less than 10,000 units is not worth the
> money?  Likely not.  Litigation is expensive and patent trolls will only
> do it if there is money to be made.  Legitimate companies do not sue
> unless there is either profit to be made or (as with the
> Microsoft/Motorola case) there is big money at stake related to something
> bigger than what the legal case is over.
> 
> That said, there is always the risk of getting sued before you can get the
> front doors to your small business propped open.  Still, one cannot stop
> out of fear of legal action.  Half the companies in Silicon Valley would
> never have opened if they concerned themselves too much with patents.
> 
> However, if successful, a day will come when it's "time to pay the fiddler
> his due."  And when that day comes, there is some comfort in knowing who
> you go to in order to license the technology you are using.
> 
> > >> G.729 is available on one-by-one basis which both Asterisk and
> > FreeSwitch sell to users... I have no insight into how these
> > agreements was worked out, but it at least indicates that someone tries
> to open up.
> > >
> > > It is my understanding that the licensing arrangements that have
> > > been
> > made for G.729 are no longer an option for new licensees (not offered
> > by the consortium), and to my knowledge such arrangements have never
> > been an option for any of the other voice/video codecs that our
> > customers have asked us about (including H.264, the AMR family and
> others).
> >
> > And isn't that a shame. The question here for the legal department is
> > wether Google's policies in regards to VP8 is enough for companies
> > like you to work with it in either binary addons or Open Source code?
> > Does it provide enough liability assurance?
> 
> Google's policies will not prevent you from getting sued one day when
> successful.  What would make me feel better is if Google could indemnify
> people.  If they feel they own all of the technology in VP8, they could
> indemnify people.  I would be pleasantly surprised if their legal team
> truly feels so confident that they own all of the technology in VP8,
> though.
> 
> With H.264, you know where to go license technology once you start to see
> a little success.  The IPR holders are known.  I cannot imagine a troll
> out there who wouldn't have already filed a lawsuit by now.  (And I'll
> note again that VP8 might even have elements that are covered by IPR
> holders who also own IPR on H.264 and who may not be so willing to license
> it for use with VP8.  I see a definite business risk there that I don't
> see with AMR or
> H.264.)
> 
> > I think that question is where we are right now.
> >
> > If not, will Google try to offer a solution?
> 
> I would not suggest you hold your breath :-)  I applaud Google for taking
> the steps it has taken so far, but I do not think there is more they can
> offer than what they have already.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb