IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> Thu, 04 December 2014 20:20 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 E736B1A1AD8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:20:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 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, 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 7M25-x40bHQ4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:20:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yh0-x22b.google.com (mail-yh0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A480D1A1AD3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:20:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yh0-f43.google.com with SMTP id z6so8593522yhz.2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 12:20:12 -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=vhymwF9CLk8OR53phg0gBxv9mrW04wDsYI4ddt73DnM=; b=jC5XOFALGb6WqlFyAukpulsSKBLDiA6B4uB1P9x7myYhMd/hoUSdEBMI5e32VeZQlW daJD+aJ/Ye1j1zyuW+OilxdoitvhujGmbID8hcH6suvvlOZwErhZKKFR0vwpSSiwQqnM q8EW6OyfWDQZVDM9rMGE6QwrjDTIMZMfprI9lSUVFDVQ+ilyJeWmVa6viplGo2rKoIaN xix5ezjCbKp3hO/52UIudg04FS2y6u+R5kv7LMTChfbnw7OADumf8TG4CJ46jzgZrBZv bimAaktZveEOECvBGCTty1mkJ0CaTIdN9dVXYfeFJXt7aQ2fW+zgkHobHmC7t6ne1rzp GZQw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.236.96.196 with SMTP id r44mr14990243yhf.187.1417724411670; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 12:20:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.170.135.193 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:20:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.170.135.193 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:20:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CB477124-13AD-47EA-A607-8A81AFFA379E@apple.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> <CB477124-13AD-47EA-A607-8A81AFFA379E@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 07:20:11 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2n1m6WRaBPNyKpowPEz_BK-SAMMFWTiB7d-eVL69w4rpQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e01537a46f2770a050969aff9"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/MAkcxBwm6ARHktv5FLDLuY3FR5M
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 20:20:14 -0000

On 5 Dec 2014 06:25, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Dec 3, 2014, at 21:16 , Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> So, your conclusion to my question is “Ship VP8, most of you probably
won’t get sued. Good luck.  Try not to be too successful or your luck may
change.”

Yes and it's the same answer as for h.264 and h.265 for that matter. Only
add to that the extra licence fee you heavy to pay, which is a certainty -
the risk of getting sued is uncertain and frankly quite small compared to
other risks that you take as a small company.

It would be nice to remove those risks, too, yes, but it's not a show
stopper and no different between the codecs.

Regards,
Silvia.

> It is an answer; I don’t think it’s a good one, myself.
>
>
>
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status