IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] ~"I'd love it if patents evaporated...If not now, when"

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Thu, 14 November 2013 20:54 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09C9111E80FA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:54:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.418
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.181, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7wHHsHtJeuqi for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:53:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDB9B21F9339 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:53:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 27C85C94C1; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:53:55 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:53:55 -0500
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20131114205355.GD13468@verdi>
References: <5282A340.7010405@gondwanaland.com> <20131113165526.GA13468@verdi> <CAHp8n2mC7voW1XkaYyOPX1iW8Evjb7jG7e5Zy=r6jgAjaW1Hdg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHp8n2mC7voW1XkaYyOPX1iW8Evjb7jG7e5Zy=r6jgAjaW1Hdg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] ~"I'd love it if patents evaporated...If not now, when"
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 14 Nov 2013 20:54:03 -0000

Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:55 AM, John Leslie <john@jlc.net> wrote:
>>
>> Basically H.264 has quite a consortium to slap down the likes of
>> Nokia in court should they sue anyone in the consortium. This greatly
>> reduces the chance of Nokia's lawyer suing.
> 
> 
> What makes you think that? I am not aware of a requirement on MPEG-LA
> to get involved in any lawsuit that involves a company suing somebody
> over a patent that is part of the H.264 pool.

   I didn't mean to say the _consortium_ has a legal obligation to get
involved in a lawsuit against one of their members -- but they do have
an incentive to do so.

   In fact, I suspect it's other _members_ of the consortium which
will pay their lawyers to get involved.

   My point was that suing one member of the consortium looks less
attractive when other members are likely to support each other.

> On the contrary: if you get sued over VP8, you will likely find that
> Google has an interest to support you.

   I sincerely hope they would -- but there is nothing to convince Nokia
lawyers not to file suit in the first place.

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email