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

Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> Thu, 04 December 2014 20:11 UTC

Return-Path: <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
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 A99971A1A82 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:11:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 R34kMTp7iATT for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:11:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yk0-x233.google.com (mail-yk0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6760D1A1A7C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:10:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yk0-f179.google.com with SMTP id 19so8347093ykq.10 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 12:10:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Tr0vJla4sMIkKcBYARr9gWYo5/VJ2mLsBbuvIcpJWyg=; b=tG23dstgW2jOLam4GySlAQKBU/RtOYgT6aIId3D7baEXyPSUj+nFWHaP6eed+59YEK hC1JaY/dYdkbFANHzQSbQ6DCovaNKOgV3h3P391/QH0wvzmhmpT/xcqsflMVZoW9EPdw qOZno0nGgv9hGMFINorAV9Yhox3UyaewomhxERfTcPu04fkeWcjF1lHgR3O/0Sezvokf 5pvSaRqCJ2TD/aLDAu12jaDyMNVHH1MlB3w8UkmDUehcRaEavQy5h3un0p0bEJKkNJIg 8q6Srs5EflFDpkxjB67RImaCmtdNfPMhX8w12ujjDHlXvNJps4uz9tQQDicN8E/uhOlF boug==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.236.13.47 with SMTP id a35mr15912057yha.84.1417723808140; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 12:10:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.170.135.193 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:10:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.170.135.193 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:10:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20141204154326.5955730.32803.3228@blackberry.com>
References: <547511DB.5050100@nostrum.com> <54759A4C.6020806@gmail.com> <5476092D.4010406@nostrum.com> <15EF2452-2C2C-420B-B972-C37EACE57850@apple.com> <CAHp8n2m+KMnui30_fMrwM+81UX-RUJM2ktuiZuPpRSnC7dxqcA@mail.gmail.com> <20141204014218.5955730.38619.3157@blackberry.com> <CAHp8n2=KWuTsmruz3W-90eAsptSoMYLTUVtyx9pAwcZFGXSKCQ@mail.gmail.com> <20141204154326.5955730.32803.3228@blackberry.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 07:10:08 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2mbOAG0DpUQCQUTh9noMcK5pnGsXLDcigFT98eG-hUHig@mail.gmail.com>
From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Allen <aallen@blackberry.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3d570f953f20509698bfc
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/JbLd1LNYUXY9TWsUSlHT1S54mD8
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)
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, 04 Dec 2014 20:11:14 -0000

There is no difference to h.264 in that respect. I still don't understand
the fascination of big companies with perceived problems of small
companies. What are you really trying to say?

Best Regards,
Silvia.
On 5 Dec 2014 02:43, "Andrew Allen" <aallen@blackberry.com> wrote:

>  Silvia
>
>  I think the risk for small companies is if they suddenly have a
> successful product and have revenue that they then become a target. Plenty
> of cash flow to go after without the experience and resources to fight off
> the lawsuit.
>
>  My point was the fact that small companies may have implemented VP8
> without yet becoming engaged in a lawsuit does not prove  that VP8 is RF.
>
>  Andrew
>
>  Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
>    *From: *Silvia Pfeiffer
> *Sent: *Wednesday, December 3, 2014 23:17
> *To: *Andrew Allen
> *Cc: *David Singer; rtcweb@ietf.org
> *Subject: *Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI
> (again, still, sorry)
>
>  Indeed, that's why I said point 1. in David's list doesn't make sense,
> since he's talking about a small company getting sued by Nokia.
>  S.
>
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Andrew Allen <aallen@blackberry.com>
> wrote:
>
>>   Silvia
>>
>>  It  is not usually the small companies that get sued in patent cases.
>> Its companies with assets and significant revenues that get the lawsuits.
>>
>>  Nobody sues the  penniless! - thats like suing the homeless!
>>
>>  Andrew
>>
>>  Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
>>    *From: *Silvia Pfeiffer
>> *Sent: *Wednesday, December 3, 2014 19:28
>> *To: *David Singer
>> *Cc: *rtcweb@ietf.org
>>  *Subject: *Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI
>> (again, still, sorry)
>>
>>   On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:33 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> 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 don't see the risk of 1. having changed because of the IETF's
>> statement. Plenty of small companies are already doing 1. and have had
>> to risk getting sued by Nokia at this point in time already. In fact,
>> it's a risk that small companies always have to deal with since there
>> is so much patented technology around that you invariable will step on
>> something. I doubt very much that the IETF's decision has any impact
>> on small business' risk in that space at all.
>>
>>
>> > I do not think that the IETF should be placing anyone into the position
>> of having three extremely unpalatable choices.
>>
>> For a small company in the WebRTC space, 3. is a non-choice. 2. Is
>> more of a business decision than an IP decision - which market are you
>> trying to address? Are you trying to be interoperable with (current)
>> browsers - then implement VP8. Are you trying to be interoperable with
>> legacy devices - then implement H.264 (and probably even H.263).
>>
>> If you are trying to argue for a large company, the situation changes.
>> However, as a large company, you tend to have an existing portfolio of
>> patents. You're already playing the game of patents. As long as your
>> hypothetical "IPR owners to grant a license only to ‘conforming
>> implementations’" doesn't happen, you are free to choose 2. and avoid
>> Nokia.
>>
>> As for the threat in your option 2. - I can only see Google with IPR
>> around VP8. Now, Google's IPR statement on WebM codecs, which includes
>> VP8 and VP9 currently states: "Google hereby grants to you a
>> perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free,
>> irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license"
>> http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/
>> The word "perpetual" implies (to my non-lawyer eyes) that they can't
>> suddenly change this to mean "only if you are conformant to the
>> standard". So you can't be referring to such a risk associated with
>> VP8 being created by Google. I don't know which other company you
>> would want to be afraid of for your hypothetical threat in 2. Could
>> you clarify?
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Silvia.
>>
>>
>> > (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
>> >
>> > singer@mac.com
>> >
>> > David Singer
>> > Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > rtcweb mailing list
>> > rtcweb@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>
>