Re: [rtcweb] VP8 litigation in Germany?

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> First, if we were adopting a tit for tat approach, I could argue that this
> lawsuit counterbalances the H.264 related lawsuit(s) (there is only one
> critical left AFAIR, which is Motorola/Microsoft) that has created so much
> noise here in the past.  You can get sued over H.264 (interlace
> frame/field adaptivity for example), but you can equally get sued over VP8
> (motion vector coding technology for example, if I remember correctly).
>

I think I must be missing the disagreement here--I read your recent
note to say that the existence of patents (in this case, Nokia's)
outside the pool was possible for both H.264 and VP8.  Your response
seems to be "this is true for others as well", which doesn't seem to
change the conclusion.

> Second, remember that H.264 is a RAND standard and Nokia is undoubtedly
> bound to their RAND commitment to the ITU.  Insofar, I very much doubt
> that they could get away with charging non-RAND rates or doing other
> unpleasant things.  For VP8, as not being a standard under RAND, there is
> no such a restricting framework in place, AFAIK.
>

A potential non-RAND response seems to be entirely a supposition; you
could equally suppose that they would make their licenses royalty
free, should they have any applicable to VP8, based on the PR value of
contributing to the existence of a more vibrant ecosystem.

regards,

Ted