Re: [rtcweb] Counting NOs (Re: Straw Poll on Nokia mincing)

[David Singer <[e-mail]>]

> But at least it satisfies (c).
> [MR] you had written in a previous post that the WG is looking for options (a) and (b), and thus the reference to that comment here - very unsporting to simply shift the goal posts. 

I am not moving them, just pointing out how much further outside them one choice is.  If H.264 is problematic because it is licensable but only for fee, something that has a ‘no license’ declaration is further away still.

> You’re saying you are aware of IPR declarations against H.264 that are unlicensable and would stand up in court?  Pray tell.
> [MR] not sure how the previously linked case has concluded, but the judges comments (available at http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=1724130  along with other details) seem to indicate a number of agreements with what was being claimed. I am also not a lawyer, but I would conclude that this is an example of one case where there are still question marks about how easy it is to get a license that covers all of the different parts of AVC/h.264. I suspect this was concluded by some kind of license agreement, although I have not been able to find any publicly available information on this.

You’re citing FastVDO.  It only takes a moment to find that they are declared type 2 (RAND).

This is from the ITU database:

Statement Id	Recommendation	Patent number	Patent application number	Version of declaration form	License option	Received date	Statement date	Organization
H264-72		H.264 (ex. H.26L)	6 421 464	None					15 June 2002 (Common Text)	2			2003-05-15	2003-05-14		FastVDO LLC

FastVDO are MPEG and ITU members, and are therefore under a disclosure obligation, as well.

> VP8 is formally *unlicensable* at the IETF.  Ignoring this does not increase credibility of your arguments.
> [MR] You see, that nice long list of patents you so avidly keep on going back to is yet to be shown to be relevant to anything related to VP8 (you mention that a few lines before this). The "formal declaration" argument would hold some weight if the company making that declaration was not in court getting negative results in its attempt to enforce what is in that declaration. Copying and pasting patent numbers into an online form does not mean those patents are relevant.

I’m afraid your blithe reassurance that there is nothing to fear carries little weight.  YANAL either.  I don’t see anyone offering indemnification, either, which would indicate some confidence that the claims have no merit.

> But I do believe that I have found a public statement from Nokia saying that they will not license patents that read on VP8 at http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/nokia-comments-on-vp8-patent.html which is interesting given that they have just confirmed the licensing of their patents to MS, so you would expect to have at least one case where the claimed to be relevant patents are licensed.

Microsoft, IIRC, bought part of the company and rights to their entire patent portfolio.  This does not seem a route that can be generally followed.


David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.