Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Stefan Slivinski <> Thu, 21 November 2013 22:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE8E71AE1A8 for <>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:42:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BAD_LINEBREAK=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PsKWQEP6BzG0 for <>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:41:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 237111AE117 for <>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:41:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (using TLSv1) by ([]) with SMTP ID; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:41:52 PST
Received: from ([fe80::edad:d9e3:99d1:8109]) by ([fe80::edad:d9e3:99d1:8109%14]) with mapi; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:37:52 -0600
From: Stefan Slivinski <>
To: "''" <>, "''" <>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:37:51 -0600
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
Thread-Index: Ac7nCY1UVfbilTf/R/G3xSUBSsvtlQAAMKQR
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA8AD7E8ausmsex00aust_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "''" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
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: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:42:01 -0000

Having some experience with patent trolls I have come to the realization that if you have means they will sue you for pretty much anything even if you do not actually infringe on their patents. You are then in the position of fighting them or paying them off.

I think it is naïve to believe you can ever completely avoid IPR by picking some archaic codec. I think we need to come up with a different solution to defend against infringement claims rather than trying to avoid them

From: Justin Uberti []
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 04:31 PM
To: Cullen Jennings <>
Cc: <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Even the proposal that recommended H.264 as MTI indicated that the technical merit of the currently proposed codecs is equivalent, and the fundamental question is IPR.

Put another way, if the alleged IPR issues associated with either H.264 or VP8 disappeared overnight, this discussion would be instantly over.

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Cullen Jennings <<>> wrote:

On Nov 21, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Justin Uberti <<>> wrote:

> That said, I think the general understanding here is that this is no longer a technical decision.

I'll note that some people strongly disagree with this is not a technical decision but there are others who do think it is is no longer a technical decision.

rtcweb mailing list<>