Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options (was: Re: confirming sense of the room: mti codec)

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Wed, 10 December 2014 23:04 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
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 8C4701A1AB3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:04:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 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] autolearn=ham
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 0o1AiLi3lY-x for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:04:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yk0-f177.google.com (mail-yk0-f177.google.com [209.85.160.177]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BF5C1A1AE3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:04:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yk0-f177.google.com with SMTP id 9so1689590ykp.22 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:04:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=qQ4RTVwBrYei+1U12szxN8TqZ2jO1duKtNeCYV41XT0=; b=Zv0S09UKrDyqbmovJ1HD+JoQNoRnjJB5GzftZzjvfbFdXC1fCJv7RhSYg/m2zhjI3t 9KosKY9cCClOlUEMI3Vm0Ap5oGMfFvBSTvzUm2zAgpT7b1QBAaA0Pk3u2fw0+xDBFE0Y ++fuAPt+7c6aK4npbjpui3nzOZYqdsDvYKh9v6OG2l3qRruqQ2GdaagBE7RGbFQtn1SR yo/nXkKH6tQbl9/2Ll3rbuJDn29/TigXgJ2vp5KB0HW9JDNWj1SHtLHU2mgQ6pjqZMIs juOqBTZ9rXFvRxFYGNJLu3Zoci5uU+ZKwhKVIbpEzyjBzWYibJMbx7rva17HbPkf5M8d vljw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlPiPq/VUxmLkWu7fwvhktdP2Wl7bVJzri1F1Ui3HpfAJaM9ck+I++h/OSXN7Sw1v3m978Z
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.170.150.213 with SMTP id r204mr5876171ykc.48.1418252686810; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:04:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.170.38.200 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:04:46 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVYNjYAM=WhpuURHMUkU4mtT7E3a5yvqSG7+fGKXKOoNw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com> <54820E74.90201@mozilla.com> <54861AD6.8090603@reavy.org> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233998AC05@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <63BC3D6D-03A1-41C2-B92D-C8DD57DC51DB@nostrum.com> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233998ADF1@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <87d27r9o0a.fsf_-_@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <CABkgnnVYNjYAM=WhpuURHMUkU4mtT7E3a5yvqSG7+fGKXKOoNw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:04:46 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL02cgRfVowjpLbB-x-j9AU3bL_EOGD2E0baesuL=bE-ME=9cQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a57d29976890509e4af97
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/Sj7qR22hjxWQQ6VeVXUStxuxRow
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.264 patent licensing options (was: Re: confirming sense of the room: mti codec)
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: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 23:04:59 -0000

+1

This conversation is out of scope for this mailing list.

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 10 December 2014 at 13:46, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> > This rules out commercial use.  Doesn't this fail the “reasonable”
> > part of RAND because it is expected that commercial end users obtain a
> > separate patent license of their own (which is not part of a product
> > that can be purchased)?  If this is still considered “reasonable”, is
> > the fact relevant that all published MPEG-LA material about H.264
> > refers to patent licensing in a broadcasting context (either the
> > production side, or the receiver side)?  This strongly suggests to me
> > that they may lack the rights to license H.264 for use in video
> > conferencing applications.
>
> I recommend that you consult counsel on these sorts of questions.
> Seeking legal opinion on an internet mailing list might not produce
> the best results.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>