Re: [rtcweb] Google VP8 Patent Grant for third parties [Was Re:Proposal for H.263 baseline codec]

"Paul E. Jones" <> Thu, 12 April 2012 07:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACE8711E809A for <>; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 00:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.068
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.068 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.884, BAYES_40=-0.185, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3Ij7+JiuFy2k for <>; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 00:09:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 129FE11E8089 for <>; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 00:09:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sydney ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q3C79mdj026354 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 12 Apr 2012 03:09:49 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=dublin; t=1334214589; bh=a7c4aleo1lfrhxpK5WOK/+tm+CTwONgWZUPrrsobIww=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=lLEdn/vuDDPdXznTpGGYLlDjjCt2vGgVvhiSkZlEydktzbTqRZPoFCUy2vBEXVGAM +8ltuh4Fp+GQQzeE1XUpu0Jg9RAgxDMxBjUKa5R4OsBKBARctTv1jIH9+H1qWxY/c4 8XCQhB30c3LGh/TT04NmH3t5yAvsYRfby3gemYyI=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <>
To: 'Dean Willis' <>
References: <> <03ac01cd120d$0ffe95f0$2ffbc1d0$> <> <03e301cd1223$153e6b60$3fbb4220$> <> <007b01cd12f7$fbcd72e0$f36858a0$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 03:09:52 -0400
Message-ID: <011201cd187b$426e2090$c74a61b0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0113_01CD1859.BB5D43E0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQB2060nC5aqi+YrENoaiW0zV5P0JgFWJR9uAc/AjNwB1VzUBAGtdKoUAdUR/YICM5hPIpjtwgKA
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Google VP8 Patent Grant for third parties [Was Re:Proposal for H.263 baseline codec]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 12 Apr 2012 07:09:52 -0000

To be fair, Microsoft and Motorola are just having a lovers quarrel.  Do
recall that Microsoft has sued Motorola over Android, now they're suing
back. It would not surprise me if there were other spats along the way, but
I don't keep up with all of these law suits.


If Motorola goes knocking on the doors of the thousands of other H.264 users
out there, I might believe there is a concern and that Motorola is trying to
kill H.264.  I don't believe that's the case, though.  And I doubt that
Motorola would charge you the same $4B to use their patents, either.  Go ask


In any case, when Google swallows Motorola, Google has an opportunity once
again to prove that it does no evil.  Google gets to manipulate those odds I




From: Dean Willis [] 
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 2:50 AM
To: Paul E. Jones
Cc: Basil Mohamed Gohar;
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Google VP8 Patent Grant for third parties [Was
Re:Proposal for H.263 baseline codec]



On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Paul E. Jones <p

While there may be undisclosed IPR on H.264, I find it hard to believe that
there would be much, if any, at this point.  Keep in mind that H.264 is
product of the joint effort of a bunch of people who are experts in the
field.  I would be suspicious of any company not involved in the development
of H.264 claiming to have IPR, because somebody in the joint committee
probably owns that IPR.  Sure, there might be something ... something very
minor.  Perhaps.


Both H.264 and  VP8 are motion-vector codings, right?


A quick search on Google Patents shows about 32,400 existing motion vector
video patents. What do you want to bet some of those apply  to one or the
other? Or both? Or both plus H.263?


Just because they haven't been asserted yet doesn't mean they're not real.
It might mean that the people that own them aren't paying attention. Or
weren't, but have started. Or don't care, but might be willing to sell their
patent to someone who does.


The simple fact is that there are a crapload of patents out there, and
creative reading can get a patent owner fired up enough to start trying to
collect revenue on even a very bad patent -- and with hundreds of thousands
of patents in the area, some of them are likely to be very good. And in
certain venues (the Eastern District of Texas comes to mind), there's a
strong presumption that patents are valid and the courts are known to grant
damages even though a reexamination is pending. And even if the patent is
bogus and you win, you've still spent a lot of money. I'd guess your firm
spends more than my yearly revenue on defending even the lamest individual


So what I'm saying is that it doesn't matter whether you use H.264 or VP8;
you're eventually going to get sued by somebody, and it's going to be
expensive and annoying. Build in a revenue margin to plan for it. But there
is an argument to make that if you use H.264, you know that somebody with an
M in their name is going to be involved SOON unless you fork out cash in
advance, whereas if you use VP8, you can hope to maybe wait longer for the
surprise and can save your money until then.


That said, they both still make me nervous. Can't we just use tin cans and
string? ;-)