Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)

Sergio Garcia Murillo <> Wed, 03 December 2014 19:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 437B31A1B18 for <>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 11:28:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G9AzHhYMcpnO for <>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 11:28:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C3AE1A1EF6 for <>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 11:28:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id bs8so32467456wib.10 for <>; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 11:28:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=oU6tzGSPA3R6iF/GISo4vghnjyX2KUUcEfQyeEauqF0=; b=SYAUhERlzj+Q1Hw4pH2Hm6O2TMGn9EfnHtJYe5jdchEFHdHuErt/cX9+lr7OZMT+Kl T9Tguoxh+EGuoMok+Q0suUlsjjpbILWzWLswKJdIAi+5CxeFih4irZ9YZo+dae+f+bnM ZWi8ej906rH+AejxYZgz1jpJmjQ9Z3icSKYkkSFTFtejasyzwz2fRClpYumDMh5tiMIs 3hewWTFHSnnXRe+d8twbahSPbi7ilQrLVm4R9Y90FEBD07t8+72VUPPTUSmGc0XhboRl NpbSdCW3eU1GZXKHvrtSB1OxYprg3Uf9l7ruSpcLTdG1ShFIAmMZQUPNQrKe3vUBfoAk GzrQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id bu17mr15120839wib.23.1417634891860; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 11:28:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id wx3sm37512969wjc.19.2014. for <> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 03 Dec 2014 11:28:11 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 20:28:12 +0100
From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)
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: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 19:28:16 -0000

A copy of this email should be placed directly in the wikipedia 
definition of FUD..

Best regards
On 03/12/2014 19:33, David Singer wrote:
> As I understand it, the recent face to face meeting decided to draft the requirement that WebRTC browsers be required to implement both VP8 and H.264, and get feedback on this, on the list.
> This is some feedback.
> I’d like to point out that this could easily place companies in an impossible position.
> Consider: it is not uncommon for IPR owners to grant a license (often free) only to ‘conforming implementations’. (A common rationale is that they want to use their IPR to bring convergence and interoperability to the industry).  Let’s hypothesize that this happens, now or in future, from Company X, for some IPR in the WebRTC specifications.
> Consider also: we have an “unwilling to license” statement from Nokia on VP8, on the formal record (and including a long list of patents).
> Consider finally: a small company for whom WebRTC is important.
> Let’s look at the choices:
> 1.  Follow the mandate, implement VP8, and risk a ruinous lawsuit from Nokia.
> 2.  Reject the mandate, do not implement VP8, and be formally therefore not conformant and therefore not in receipt of a license from company X; risk a ruinous lawsuit from X.
> 3.  Do not implement WebRTC, and risk a ruinous loss of relevance.
> I do not think that the IETF should be placing anyone into the position of having three extremely unpalatable choices.
> (Yes, I am aware that #2 is ‘unlikely’, but one day someone will decide that the “only to conformant implementations” clause needs to be real and enforced, and will do this; our hypothetical small company might prefer not to be the example case.)
> (I use a small company as the example, because for them the risk is bankruptcy, but of course no-one likes to step into the path of trouble even if they have the resources to weather it.)
> Dave Singer
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list