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

[Silvia Pfeiffer <[e-mail]>]

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" <[e-mail]> 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; [e-mail]
> *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 <[e-mail]>
> 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: *[e-mail]
>>  *Subject: *Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI
>> (again, still, sorry)
>>
>>   On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:33 AM, David Singer <[e-mail]> 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
>> >
>> > [e-mail]
>> >
>> > David Singer
>> > Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > rtcweb mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>
>