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

Roman Shpount <> Thu, 04 December 2014 20:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B54421A1A97 for <>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:15:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M5aT1qO2n1XB for <>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:15:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBA691A1A95 for <>; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:15:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id l18so23744454wgh.12 for <>; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 12:15:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=+wzGnvUT+wu9UQfjF50N6A0lDK4mPAyUkJUrh0AFqc8=; b=T5P2OLkGwi+J6gHIEFw2umkRz3URzt83WizmdlO6CaTZBBB2B/rNkDrehw+0c6MhZ/ 3XA0pndV/1Lfjb5na6yqNGdL9lhtJB1iPmupvVCBOyu44XY9roU5vdwaqLIBWv1sEjgQ 7FLZbI/j8yxAWEtfQ4bsgUUnQ6oVjttjdc7ABpQNh/5XNZSlqYCWJwRfE+LHpGJ0LIYs /e4e8vRELUcQ5GaFsrBy/ufalVNhIduPfJoY6Na+Mrr/jt9YCHsJlOIanJO6SNHHlh/w 0/igJB8VL/y1bn3C2YkBKpv1pB99DzIlWudUCbZsa240/O51T8mChhmbWVZJfyLH8iLL NPYg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnSmHqPdMNGON3FFqgRqx7p11Ffi7jwYTxg1dsjxUP/Ch/5DtYqUx7WQYpm3OthGXDNnVtP
X-Received: by with SMTP id p6mr19122243wjw.50.1417724123396; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 12:15:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id dg7sm42745378wib.24.2014. for <> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Dec 2014 12:15:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id n12so15297360wgh.8 for <>; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 12:15:22 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id cl20mr19074317wjb.71.1417724122116; Thu, 04 Dec 2014 12:15:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:15:21 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 15:15:21 -0500
Message-ID: <>
From: Roman Shpount <>
To: David Singer <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd910c2b03e1f0509699ef3
Cc: "" <>
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: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 20:15:47 -0000


The other answer is "Ship H.264. Most of you are going to get sued. Good
luck settling." The risk associated with licensing H.264 is very high for
any company who is not already part of this quagmire. There are enough
problems there to hire an IPR law firm the second you look at H.264 and
hope that they are professional enough and there is enough money to
settle.  I do understand that companies who are already stuck with H.264
would not want to be exposed to any additional IPR claims. There is also a
little problem that if they implement VP8, they cannot sue any other VP8
implementers, or risk losing the VP8 IPR license.

Being a small company, we had to go through patent law suite/settlement
process several times already. Being small is not a defense against getting
sued. Some IPR holders prefer to start with going after smaller players to
create a large precedent base before going after larger targets. As far as
possibility of being sued is concerned, the free VP8 license actually looks
safer for us then the paid H.264 license. Neither offers indemnity, but, at
least, VP8 license offers reciprocity.

I do think that the current solution is the only one currently possible. If
everyone implements both, then everyone would be forced to deal with the
same problems. Hopefully, as a result, some sort of collective resolution
would be found. I doubt anybody is happy with this decision. There are a
parties who are affected by this decision who can make the situation better
for everybody. If they think this decision is so bad, they know exactly
what is required to make other options acceptable.

Roman Shpount

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:25 PM, David Singer <> wrote:

> > On Dec 3, 2014, at 21:16 , Silvia Pfeiffer <>
> 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.”
> It is an answer; I don’t think it’s a good one, myself.
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list