Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> Thu, 11 December 2014 07:24 UTC

Return-Path: <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
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 278331A0058 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 23:24:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.34
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.34 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 hB0ws4GGg5X3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 23:24:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from albireo.enyo.de (albireo.enyo.de [46.237.207.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45C961A854A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 23:24:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.17.203.2] (helo=deneb.enyo.de) by albireo.enyo.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) id 1Xyy6l-0000hS-Bf; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 08:24:19 +0100
Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <fw@deneb.enyo.de>) id 1Xyy6l-0002xC-2x; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 08:24:19 +0100
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com> <54820E74.90201@mozilla.com> <54861AD6.8090603@reavy.org> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233998AC05@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <63BC3D6D-03A1-41C2-B92D-C8DD57DC51DB@nostrum.com> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233998ADF1@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <87d27r9o0a.fsf_-_@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <CABkgnnVYNjYAM=WhpuURHMUkU4mtT7E3a5yvqSG7+fGKXKOoNw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 08:24:18 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVYNjYAM=WhpuURHMUkU4mtT7E3a5yvqSG7+fGKXKOoNw@mail.gmail.com> (Martin Thomson's message of "Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:59:05 -0800")
Message-ID: <87iohisl7h.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/BWQqR7vep-tng-zkow609QVpcLA
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 07:24:24 -0000

* Martin Thomson:

> On 10 December 2014 at 13:46, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
>> This rules out commercial use.  Doesn't this fail the “reasonable”
>> part of RAND because it is expected that commercial end users obtain a
>> separate patent license of their own (which is not part of a product
>> that can be purchased)?  If this is still considered “reasonable”, is
>> the fact relevant that all published MPEG-LA material about H.264
>> refers to patent licensing in a broadcasting context (either the
>> production side, or the receiver side)?  This strongly suggests to me
>> that they may lack the rights to license H.264 for use in video
>> conferencing applications.
>
> I recommend that you consult counsel on these sorts of questions.
> Seeking legal opinion on an internet mailing list might not produce
> the best results.

This is about IETF policy towards RAND licensing.  It's a working
group and IETF decision, not something that can be left to lawyers.